finyork.com

Author: mperiaswamy@gmail.com

  • New York City’s Housing Market Finishes Strong in 2021; Slowdown Expected in 2022?

    New York City’s residential real estate market closed 2021 with many arguing it had the strongest performance in three decades. By mid-October, Manhattan contract signings already surpassed the previous record, which was 12,520 in 2013 (UrbanDigs). With a little under two weeks left in 2021, closings reached 14,774 (Cavanaugh, TheRealDeal). Already, that’s more than double the 2020 total. Despite a rise in listings, that level of closings undoubtably depleted inventory. Are we heading towards a residential real estate market slowdown in NYC in 2022?

    UrbanDigs found that through December 5th, 2021, listings had exceeded the 2008-2018 average by 18%. Net new inventory – the number of monthly new listings, minus contracts signed and listings taken off-market – surprised many market experts. Astonishingly, buyers bought out the increased supply at an even faster pace. Net new inventory dropped below zero in 9 of 11 months during 2021, to negative 861 units (Cavanaugh, TheRealDeal).

    For buyers, prices have steadily risen in tandem. For the first time since 2015, listing discounts fell consistently throughout the year, even as buy-side competition increased. The luxury market, considered properties with a selling price of $4M and up, had the best year since 2014 (UrbanDigs). Buyers spent over $14B so far and with less than a couple weeks left in 2021, this represents a 19% increase over the previous record of the last three decades (UrbanDigs).

    Even with the residential housing market’s red hot 2021 performance, UrbanDigs co-founder John Walkup does not have nearly the same forecast for 2022.

    “Deal volume may slow through the holiday season, especially with fewer units coming to market”

    -John Walkup, Co-Founder of UrbanDigs

    He continued with stating he feels the next quarter could be noticeably slower than Q4 of 2021.

    “A slowdown in buy-side activity may cause inventory levels to rise, pressuring prices”

    -John Walkup, Co-Founder of UrbanDigs

    Furthermore, he predicted a “multi-quarter lull in 2022” for the luxury market.

    Walkup’s predictions for 2022 aren’t exactly universally accepted by known residential real estate experts. Jonathan Miller, President and CEO of Miller Samuel, had a different sentiment in his latest report for Douglas Elliman. Miller sees deals in Manhattan and Brooklyn continuing to outpace listings heading into 2022, as they have closing 2021. His report cautions real estate market participants not to be surprised if there isn’t as noticeable a slowdown in 2022.

     “Inventory is continuing to collapse, and that’s why we anticipate continued price growth into the new year”

    -Jonathan Miller, President & CEO of Miller Samuel

    According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the Federal Reserve may hike interest rates as early as March 2022. Walkup believes this could “put an upper bound on condo prices, with luxury and new development prices falling first”. Simultaneously, Walkup assured the luxury lull will be “nothing too drastic”, estimating discounts maxing out at 5%.

    In a peculiar comparison, the WSJ noted that condos, as an asset class, lag behind the exceptional performance of the S&P 500 Index (Joe Wallace, Wall Street Journal). The S&P hit a 67th record high in the third to last week of 2021 (Alexander Osipovich, Wall Street Journal). Since the 2008 US financial collapse was largely related to assets and various securities in the housing market, it’s not surprising during that time, both the stock market and the value of real estate took a hit as a result (Cavanaugh, TheRealDeal). UrbanDigs found that since January 2008, the S&P increased 230%, while the price per square foot of a new Manhattan condo rose 68%.

    “The frothy activity observed in the NYC real estate market since the reopening has yet to translate into anything approaching the gains seen on the broader equity index”

    -John Walkup, Co-Founder of UrbanDigs

    While that may be true, you cannot live in an index, or any stock portfolio.

    Interest rates could also be a major influencing factor for foreign investment. Should the Fed raise rates, this would further strengthen the USD, which already surged to a 16-month high in November 2021 according to Barron’s. As a result, this places buyers with wealth in other countries in a disadvantageous position. So much so, Walkup pontificates, that this will dissuade foreigners from buying US real estate. Instead, Walkup believes they are likely to liquidate their current holdings. He goes on to state, “2022 could be the year of the foreign sellers”.

    In anticipation of the opposite, NYC brokers geared up for an influx of foreign buyers, ahead of travel bans being lifted from 33 countries in November 2021. The increasing prevalence of the Omicron variant is heavily pushing a slowdown on that effort. Nonetheless, a rebound of residential real estate in overseas markets suggests foreign investor fears may be receding.

    “On the whole, I think travel bans take a back seat to [profit and loss] statements. So whereas a lifted travel ban could certainly stimulate some activity, if NYC investment returns are viewed as less than optimal due to currency fluctuations or price volatility, foreign buyers will look elsewhere.”

    -John Walkup, Co-Founder of UrbanDigs

    On a more granular level, Walkup expects continued strong townhouse demand and a renewed interest in “fixer-uppers”. Compared to the 2008 – 2018 average, in 2021 average monthly sales volume of Manhattan townhouses rose by nearly 50 percent. Walkup feels the market will likely remain hot, as buyers continue pursuing space and privacy, inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic. He sees sales and prices continuing to rise, as more homes are snapped up, thereby depleting inventory.

    The demand for renovated units, however, could be ebbing (UrbanDigs). In October 2021, UrbanDigs released a report outlining a roughly 30 percent divide between prices of renovated units and “fixer-uppers”. The prevailing theory seems to be supply chain problems, with labor shortages and rising material costs being the main catalysts. This helps explain why a very substantial block of buyers opted to avoid properties requiring extensive renovation.

    Walkup said in 2022, the spread between renovated and unrenovated units has potential to narrow. Increasingly tightening supply compels buyers to opt for units in need of some TLC. All-in-all, especially considering NYC has remained a historically hot buyer’s market when it comes to residential real estate throughout all of 2021, it’s too early to truly predict what 2022 will bring. The Omicron variant’s spread throughout the US, as well as the world, will surely have an impact. Other external economic factors will continue to impact NYC’s housing market as well, as all eyes are on the Fed. If and when the Fed chooses to hike up rates, investors should expect the entire landscape of residential real estate in NYC, as well as the entire United States, to change.  

  • What America’s Past in Real Estate Tells Us About the Future

    Some experts have argued that we’re at a torrid time in the future of the US real estate market. Others have argued NYC’s housing market has been roaring, with no sign of slowing down. With inflation continuing to cripple the value of the USD, prospective home buyers face pressure to invest in tangible assets. Many Americans are realizing a home is the most sensible shelter for their savings (Nguyen, Forbes).

    However, home supplies in coveted markets are scarce. Prices are ever-climbing and competition for homes is currently relentless. That’s generally where America’s market currently stands. The main question on the minds of homeowners and prospective buyers continues to be: “Where will markets go from here?”

    Of course, no one can say with certainty. Nevertheless, select lessons from America’s history provide a blueprint for home buying at this unique historical juncture.

    Lesson from the Great Depression

    Principally, you cannot separate the national economy from the nation’s housing markets. The American economy and the American housing market are akin to dominos aligned in the same row. On some occasions, the economy is the domino at the front of the row. Whereas there were other times – the subprime mortgage crisis (Great Recession, 2008) – the housing market is first in line.

    Arguably no time in American history better exhibits the inextricable link between national economic performance and the American people’s ability to both purchase, as well as hold onto, long-term houses. As the stock market crashed in 1929, bank runs quickly ensued, and mass unemployment followed closely behind. A staggering 273,000 Americans lost their homes in 1932, plus even more suffered foreclosure in the following year. Americans simply did not have the wherewithal to keep up with mortgage payments when crushing stagflation hit.

    Some things have not changed since the onset of the Great Depression. Americans today have become far more cognizant of a future possibility of widespread economic downturn. An economy in contraction means jobs lost, wages uncollected, and mortgage payments undelivered. Ultimately, this means foreclosures.

    Current Home-Buying Spree Continues

    Yet, even facing economic hardship triggered by the pandemic, America finds itself in the midst of a record home-buying spree. This may suggest any of the following three (Nguyen, Forbes):

    • A new segment of Americans (including former apartment-dwelling city residents) are injecting unprecedented capital into newfound housing markets.
    • Home buyers see houses as a sound investment, even as many expect the economy to take a turn for the worse.
    • The demand for homes in America is far greater than supply, increasing competition for each home.

    On one hand, the Great Depression is a necessary reminder for prospective home owners to not purchase beyond their means. However, many who lost their homes during the Great Depression certainly weren’t living lavishly. This is a critical takeaway – though one we must extract – from the hardships of the late 1920s and 1930s.

    Moreover, there are notable differences between 1930’s America and 2021, which bode favorably for today’s housing market. Incentive-laden tax policies, enacted since the Depression, made it more affordable to purchase homes and make the requisite mortgage payments. Today, Americans have a variety of investment options to mitigate risk. Additionally, federal policy has prevented bank failures from the magnitude witnessed during the Great Depression.

    Lesson from the GI Bill (1944)

    Concisely, cheap credit can set you up for life (Nguyen, Forbes). If you’ve been relishing your prevailing 3% interest rates, prepare for disappointment (by comparison).

    Not long after the Allied invasion of Normandy Beach, US President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI Bill (1944). The was portrayed as a token of appreciation to a generation of young Americans, who risked their lives at war. Upon returning home, those GIs received government-backed loans that all but guaranteed homeownership, amongst other benefits. Banks the US government deemed a guarantor were overwhelmingly likely to approve a mortgage application.

    With access to such favorable loan conditions, veterans went on to purchase 20% of all homes built after the war. GIs took full, absolute advantage of the easy credit they undeniably earned.

    Fast forward to the present. While a government-guaranteed loan might sound ideal, you truly cannot complain about today’s prevailing 3% interest rates (Campisi, Forbes). To compare, interest rates topped 17% in 1982, then hovered around 10% for significant periods in the 1990s. That means two decades ago, you’d have to pay 8% for a home loan. Quite staggering compared to today’s housing market climate, to say the least.

    To reemphasize, the prime takeaway from the GI Bill, is that favorable credit should be pounced on, while it’s available. Historically, the sub-3% rate, which we’ve seen for the vast majority of 2021, is a statistical anomaly. Based on the frenzy of home buying we’ve witnessed, it seems that many Americans and foreign investors know their history. Perhaps much more than some casual real estate investors may think.

    Conclusion

    Seemingly, the two monumental American national economic events discussed provide opposing lessons for today’s prospective home buyer. The sudden, near-total crash of the Depression-era housing market reminds us the importance of consumer’s buying within their means. The GI Bill reinforces the importance of closing on a home, especially while lending terms are favorable. Upon extensive examination, these lessons can be very much complimentary in the future.

    As we’ve noted, today, Americans find themselves at a confounding point. Interest rates are very favorable; however, the economy is riddled with inflationary concerns and general uncertainty. It’s a time both reminiscent of GI Bill-era opportunity and Depression-era anxiety (Nguyen, Forbes).

    Of any lesson investors should takeaway, it’s this: you can embrace the benefits of comparatively cheap credit while remaining within your spending means. Be sure you don’t miss out on a prime real estate investment, while interest rates are so favorable. Stray away from overextending yourself to the point where you cannot keep up with future payments, should times get tough.

    For strategically sound real estate investing, you must look to the past to help predict the future. If nothing else, for guidance. That includes the better parts, but perhaps even more importantly for investors, the worse.  

  • How Real Estate Impacts the US Economy

    Real estate, commonly known as the largest asset class in the world, would intuitively play an integral role in the US economy. Residential real estate properties provide a vital pillar of the “American Dream”: private housing for families. Separately, they can also be the greatest source of wealth and savings for many Americans. Commercial real estate (CRE) – including apartment buildings – creates jobs and rented spaces for retail stores, offices, and manufacturing warehouses. Real estate business and investment provides a source of revenue for millions of Americans.

    In 2018, real estate construction contributed $1.15 trillion to the US national economy output (BEA.gov). That accounts for 6.2% of the US economy GDP over the same year, which is quite a significant proportion. For comparison’s sake, it’s more than the $1.13 trillion in 2017, however less than the 2006-peak of $1.19 trillion. Back in 2006, real estate construction was an even heftier 8.9% component of US GDP (Amadeo, The Balance).

    While there’s some politicization over whether these qualify as “good” jobs, real estate construction is obviously labor-intensive. It plays a major force in job creation. The decline in housing construction was undoubtedly a major contribution to the COVID-19 Recession’s high unemployment rate.

    The Ripple Effect in the US Economy of Real Estate

    Construction is the only part of real estate that’s directly calculated into US GDP (Amadeo, The Balance). Nonetheless, real estate affects many other areas of the US economy, which aren’t captured by US GDP metrics. As an example, a decline in real estate sales inevitably leads to a decline in real estate prices. This effect lowers the value of all homes, irrespective of whether owners are actively selling or not. Furthermore, this causes a reduction in the overall number of home equity loans available to owners. Ultimately, the market impact is reduced consumer spending, as more homeowner cash is tied up in housing projects.

    As many are aware, nearly 70% of the US economy is based on personal consumption (BEA.gov). Consequently, a reduction in consumer spending is directly linked to a downward spiral in the US economy. The downward spiral causality is easily witnessed. This macroeconomic phenomenon leads to further drops in employment, income, and consumer spending (Amadeo, The Balance). The primary concern about the US economy falling into a deep recession stems from concerns about Federal Reserve policy. The Federal Reserve received widespread accreditation for keeping rates very low throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Many experts argue a further cut to interest rates are still necessary (Amadeo, The Balance). There is one positive takeaway regarding lower home prices. They lessen the chance of inflation.

    Real Estate and the 2008 US (Global) Economy Recession

    Of course, no better example exists of real estate’s impact on the US economy than the 2008 recession. While very few immediately realized it, falling home prices triggered the downturn and subsequent broad, ill effects. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), by July 2007, the median price of an existing single-family home in the US was down 4% since its peak in October 2005 (National Association of Realtors). Macroeconomists, risk analysts, credit analysts, and economists as a whole couldn’t reconcile how concerning this was. Clear definitions and numeric parameters of recession, bear market, and a stock market correction are well standardized. The same is still, not yet true for the housing market.

    For perspective and comparison, many likened it to the 24% decline during the Great Depression of 1929. Others compared it to the decline ranging from 22% to 40% in US, oil-producing areas in the early 1980s. Incorrectly using these as benchmarks, the 2008 housing “slump” could appear barely newsworthy. To the contrary, the crash quickly gained steam. Economic studies have shown that even fairly small declines between 10% and 15% are enough to eliminate the homeowner’s equity. We saw this occur in early 2007 within communities in Florida, Nevada, and Louisiana.

    Death by Derivatives

    Staggeringly, nearly half the loans issued between 2005 and 2007 were subprime. Of course, this means homebuyers are much more likely to default. Far worse for the national economy, banks used these loans to finance trillions of dollars of derivatives. Banks infamously packaged these loans into mortgage-backed securities. They peddled them as “safe” investments to pension funds, corporations, and retirees. Moreover, they were thought of as “insured” from default by a new insurance product called a credit default swap. The biggest issuer was American International Group, Inc. (AIG).

    Once borrowers defaulted, the mortgage-backed securities had very questionable value. A huge number of investors began to exercise their credit default swaps, such that AIG ran out of cash. They were ready to default themselves, until the Federal Reserve bailed them out.

    Investment banks with a large number of mortgage-backed securities on their books – most notably Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers – were rejected by other banks. Without cash to continue operations, they ran to the Fed for help. The Fed wound up finding a buyer for Bear Sterns, but not the latter, Lehman. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers kicked off the 2008 financial crisis, officially.

    Are We on The Brink?

    Studies show investors are seriously questioning whether another real estate market crash will happen in the next two years. Housing prices are more or less stagnant, while the Fed is beginning to drop interest rates. This is indicative of a bubble and historically we know that bubbles burst.

    However, there are many structural differences to consider when evaluating today’s market with the housing market in 2005. Firstly, the volume of subprime loans makes up a smaller percentage of the mortgage market. Interestingly, however, these are growing under the “nonprime loans” name. In 2005, they contributed roughly 20% (Amadeo, The Balance). Additionally, banks have greatly increased lending standards. Investors, those who flip houses, have to provide between 20% to 45% of the cost of a home. Compared to during the subprime crisis, buyers needed to provide 20% or less.

    Most importantly, homeowners are not taking as much equity out of their homes. Home equity skyrocketed at $85 billion in 2006. Subsequently, it collapsed to less than $10 billion in 2010 and remained around that level until 2015. By 2017, it had only risen to $14 billion (Amadeo, The Balance). A major reason behind that is fewer people are filing for bankruptcy (Allen, Consumer Reports). In 2016, only 770,846 filed for bankruptcy; by comparison in 2010, only 1.5 million people did (Allen, Consumer Reports). Many economists, quite surprisingly, attribute this to “Obamacare”.

    The Bottom Line

    Concisely, we’re very unlikely to see anything close to what we witnessed in 2008 for a number of reasons. Primarily, structural changes in the economy – such as volatility ratio mandates for investment and retail banks – would prevent a widespread financial epidemic, even if the housing market were to suffer a significant downturn. Equally important to the housing market, mandates for homeowners and active real estate investors are more stringent. Finally, cost-cutting measures, such as the ACA, make it less likely for homeowners to default on mortgage payments.

    This is not even considering that while some reputable economists believe we may see prices decline in the next two years, we’ve yet to see it. In fact, as we continue to recover from COVID-19 economically, we’re seeing a housing market recovery. There’re multiple reasons we don’t need to worry about a repeat of 2008.

  • How to Best Invest in Real Estate in the Midwest

    The most surprising feature about housing markets in the Midwest is that home prices – in most of them – are still below the level where local incomes dictate they should be (Winzer, Forbes). If you’re a real estate investor, this means two things. Firstly, there are bargains still available in these markets. Secondly, demand for housing not been very strong, at least not yet.

    Midwest Housing Market Overview

    The lack of rebound in the Midwest housing market following 2008 is largely due to the specific types of local economic growth that prevailed before that (Winzer, Forbes). The housing recession came coupled with a lengthy, slow decline in manufacturing. The availability of an educated but low-cost labor force had encouraged the growth of big financial operations in Des Moines, Minneapolis, Omaha, Sioux Falls and Green Bay. However, manufacturing still has a large role in Fayetteville, Davenport, Peoria, Rockford, Gary, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Wichita, Milwaukee and Green Bay (Millsap, Forbes).

    This makes these markets a bit riskier to invest in. The markets with a large finance sector are also risky because automation is responsible for an increasing amount of work. Despite structural problems, growth is now returning to many Midwest markets, as it did prior to COVID-19. Especially in areas that function as regional centers – Fayetteville and Peoria, for example – the expansion of jobs is due to an increase in healthcare and business services. Similarly, to the country, these services are becoming concentrated in large urban centers, creating opportunities for investors in rental housing.

    An uncharacteristic feature housing investors contend with is many Midwest markets have agricultural roots, with manufacturing later added on top. Since land was readily and easily available during their growth, they tend to be spread out. This combination produces low home prices, but increased difficulty for investors to select a locality. After all, the saying “real estate is about location, location, location”, rings true in most cases.

    Now that we’ve established some fundamental generalities, let’s get to the specifics and numbers.

    Established Demand

    Fort Wayne, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Green Bay, Springfield, Fayetteville, Gary and South Bend.

    In these markets, it appears home prices increased relatively broadly in the past year, indicating good demand not just for single-family homes, but rentals as well. With prices still well below income levels and above average job growth, demand is likely to keep raising prices higher. Though the trend depicted below shows the housing market pre-COVID, that trend is pretty much identical today. The housing market didn’t really suffer the same volume of consequences as other markets, but the small parts that did are steadily recovering (Winzer, Forbes).

    Source: Local Market Monitor, Inc.

    South Bend and Gary are at the bottom of this list because their job growth had been less reliable. Before bargains evaporate, investors should move quickly into these markets. Straight, single-family rentals – with minor improvements – are the best bet (Winzer, Forbes).

    Growing Demand

    Des Moines, Omaha, Lake County-Kenosha County, Sioux Falls, Minneapolis, Madison.

    These markets are showing solid job growth, but only moderate increases in demand thus far. Apartments appear to be a good investment in Lake County-Kenosha County and Minneapolis, due to higher density and prices. Since their dependence on the financial sector is comparably very high, most of these markets are also slightly riskier, so investors should be very careful to find properties towards the middle of the renter pool and definitely avoid the higher end.

    Uncertain Demand

    Little Rock, Wichita, Davenport, St. Louis, Chicago, Rockford, Milwaukee, Fargo, Peoria.

    In these markets either demand or job growth are weak, or even more likely, both. Low home prices are also far more commonly found in these markets. This may tempt investors to purchase a low-cost property and rent it out for cheap, without spending another dime. However, renting at the low-end is a specialty that most investors should avoid. In uncertain real estate markets, it makes sense to first look for the safest geographic areas in that market. Then you can perhaps expand and renovate a really inexpensive property, turning it into a profitable rental. That definitely involves more work, but it has potential to give you a bigger return for less risk.

    The Bottom Line

    Concisely, there’s clearly room for excellent returns on housing market investments in the Midwest. While some areas have more opportunity, depending on what strategy you choose, there’s solid return on investment potential all-around. The more time that passes from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the less attractive prospects will exist. Active real estate investors would be wise to look strongly into the Midwest and move quickly on specifically the kinds of properties with the features described above. Considering the housing rental market is excellent and still growing, there are definite, safe strategies to fall back on.

  • What is a Private Equity Real Estate Fund?

    In the simplest terms, a real estate private equity fund is a partnership established to raise equity for ongoing real estate investments (Bond, NAIOP). A general partner (GP), most frequently referred to as the “sponsor”, creates the fund. The sponsor asks investors, known as limited partners (LPs), to invest equity in the fund or partnership. Those funds, along with money borrowed from commercial banks, investment banks, public institutions, asset managers, and other lenders, are supposed to be invested in a variety of real estate development or acquisition opportunities.

    Typically, the LPs provide the bulk of the equity capital and are passive investors, who have actively chosen to invest in an offering, which was presented by the sponsor. LPs earn an early return of capital and a preferred return on capital invested (Bond, NAIOP). Sponsors are in charge of providing the equity capital, securing investment opportunities, managing the real estate and the fund, and earning fees (that typically are based on performance).

    A real estate private equity fund differs from capital that comes from friends and family and joint ventures. A differentiating example of a joint venture could be among a landowner, a developer, and a money partner. None could complete the investment without the others, and the joint venture is specific to just one investment. Real estate private equity funds, on the other hand, are created to invest in a series of deals with a standardized risk and reward structure created for the overall fund in which the sponsor and LP participate unequally (Bond, NAIOP).

    What are the Sponsor’s Motivations?

    While there are arguments for a laundry list of motivations, we’ll highlight the general motivating factors for sponsors.

    • Diversify and expand funding sources, as well as holdings

    A sponsor with a pipeline of potential investments can use a fund to take advantage of a portfolio consisting of a variety of deals that would not otherwise be available. The capital-raising strategy should, however, focus on the sponsor’s history, the experience of the team, the potential for returns, alignment of interests and clearly identified opportunities. The most reputable developers with the best track records are able to find investment opportunities in their home markets that are outside their traditional property type focus, opportunities outside their historical geographic focus, or some combination of both (Bond, NAIOPI). A private equity fund has the potential to provide the scale that will allow the sponsor to fully take advantage of these opportunities, thereby generating returns over a much larger capital base and likely even lowering the risk of the firm.

    • Invest in larger and higher quality projects

    A sponsor that has capital constraints can use funds to invest in larger and more complex projects. Conversely, more partners also enable the developer to share the risks with their investors to create a better risk-return balance on large, complex projects that the sponsor would not be able to take on alone.

    • Obtain better terms from banks and other lenders.
    • Provide an alternative to mezzanine capital.
    • Develop projects using fund-level financing in lieu of project-by-project financing.
    • Earn fees from the fund, including a promoted interest. 

    The “Three Key” Considerations to a Private Equity Real Estate Fund

    While an argument could be made for a myriad of factors that are critical to take into account when setting up a private equity fund, three key considerations standout. These are pillars to success in establishing the fund and efficiently raising capital from the limited partners.

    1) Amount of Equity Capital to Raise

    The first consideration is the amount of equity capital that ought to be raised. This should include organizational fees. The minimum private equity fund size is generally considered to be $20 million. While organizational costs are generally proportional to fund size, the floor for organizational fees is about $400,000. While the sponsor recoups these fees from the fund once the capital is raised, the sponsor must carry these costs during the fund’s formation period. Examples of these costs include: formation costs for the legal entity or entities, filing fees, accounting fees, regulatory brokerage costs, clearing costs and the cost of producing marketing documents (Bond, NAIOP).

    While the fund’s equity capital is typically combined with debt capital to create a total pool for investing, a successful fund needs to balance potential deal flow with the fund’s size to ensure that the fund can produce sustainable returns for the LPs, and that it doesn’t become too small, such that a follow-on fund might need to be launched. The timing of flows to and from the fund should also be considered. In general, LPs begin earning a preferred return on their capital as soon as the funds are invested. Therefore, in addition to obtaining a commitment from each LP for the total investment amount, astute sponsors stage the pay-in to match the fund’s anticipated timing of investments.

    2) Realistic Amount of Time, Energy, and Seed Funding Required

    Sponsors must be clear-eyed about the time, energy and seed funding required to launch a fund (Bond, NAIOP). The sponsor is responsible for all aspects of the fund: organizing the fund, which includes generating a partnership agreement, offering and subscription documents; securing investment opportunities; securing loans and other financing; managing the fund; operating the properties; preparing partners’ tax returns; and responding to accounting and audit matters, and this is to name only a few of the highlights. These responsibilities put the sponsor is under a constant, daunting amount of pressure. You may have the financial acumen, but you may not have other traits essential to being a successful sponsor.

    3) Clear Investment Fund Strategy

    It’s imperative for sponsors to have a clear and easily understood investment fund strategy. This differs from the market fundamentals, property type, and location strategies that dominate traditional real estate investing assessments. Though experienced sponsors and the largest funds may be able to raise funds for a “blind pool” – a fund for which no individual investments are identified – first-time sponsors typically must identify specific investments that are included in the fund’s offering memorandum.

    Concisely, there’s a lot of complexity to operating or owning a private equity fund that we didn’t get to. However, our goal was to cover the core basics. What is a private equity fund, how is it set up, and what are the key takeaways? We hope this piece was helpful and educational for those interested in private equity.

  • Liquidity for India’s REIT Market to Improve Based on Revised SEBI Norms

    As we’ve highlighted before, real estate is by far the biggest asset class in the world. A short time back, there was a relaxation in investment norms and real estate investment trusts by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Real estate investment companies directly impacted praised SEBI’s initiative (Nandy, MINT). Specifically, they were grateful SEBI took a proactive approach to address a growing, local real estate market problem (Nandy, MINT). Typically, when looking at financial markets regulated by a government’s central compliance department, it’s very rare to see them proactively intervene with the intent of improving liquidity conditions for market participants. Aside from major global economic catastrophes, which always require a unique centralized response, regulators are thought of as “watchdogs”. Here, a regulator intervened to create opportunities for investors to get simpler, quicker access to larger sums of cash. 

    Indian REITS are expecting to bring in more retail investors and encourage more public listings in the future. SEBI recently revised the minimum subscription and trading lot for publicly issued REITS and infrastructure investment trusts (InvITs). with the minimum application value to be brought down from ₹50,000 now to a range of Rs.10,000-15,000 and the revised trading lot shall be of one unit.

    Support for SEBI Initiative from Major Indian REIT Investment Manager and CEO

    “We welcome SEBI’s regulation to reduce the minimum application value from ₹50,000 to Rs. 10,000-15,000, and trading lot to one unit. The earlier ₹50,000 cap restricted participation to only a certain set of investors. We believe that this amendment makes investment in REITs at par with other equity options in India. Reduction in minimum application amount will further bring in more investors thus improving the liquidity in REITs”.

    – Vinod Rohira, CEO, Mindspace Business Parks REIT

    In late 2020, it was first reported that SEBI was considering opening up REITs and InvITs to small investors by lowering the minimum trading lot size of REIT units from ₹50,000 to the value of just a single unit, much like how stocks are traded.

    Presently, there are just three publicly listed office REITs in the country – Embassy REIT, Mindspace Business Parks REIT, and the most recently listed Brookfield India REIT (Yadav, MINT).

    “We commend this proactive initiative by the regulator to reduce the trading lots of both REITs and InVITs. Embassy REIT’s listing in 2020, coupled with our strong and resilient performance since then, has paved the way for Indian REITs to evolve a mainstream asset class. With approximately $2 billion of primary REIT equity having listed in India in the last two years, leading global and domestic asset managers and growing numbers of retail holders now form the foundation of REIT unit holder registers. The reduction in lot size will increase liquidity for the entire REIT market, enable REITs to be included into benchmark domestic indices and allow greater participation from newer pools of institutional and retail investors.”

    – Michael Holland, CEO, Embassy REIT

    Impact to CRE Investing in India

    With India being on every investor’s radar as a country with potential lucrative returns, this should be welcome news. It’s also clear both Vinod and Michael, CEOs of two-thirds of India’s publicly listed REITs, echo each other’s statements. Revisions and relaxation to SEBI norms will improve liquidity conditions for REITs. This should encourage foreign investment and furthermore, the kind of investment India wants to see an increase in (Yadav, MINT).

    India has steadily been growing in CRE investment, something they telegraphed they would try to do. In India, CRE has grown at a 16 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over the last five years. India was one of the few countries who avoided significant CRE investment decline resulting from COVID-19 (Sinha, Financial Express). All-in-all, while India’s real estate investment market (commercial or residential) obviously can’t be compared to the United States, the numbers paint a clear picture. The most influential Indian industry executives double down on what the numbers show. The aforementioned actions recently taken by SEBI will only continue that trajectory. How quickly India’s CRE market specifically will grow is definitely debatable, but for now there’s no doubt, investment is increasing. Again, SEBI altering norms to improve liquidity conditions for Indian REITs will continue to attract increasing investment to India.

  • Twitter is the Ultimate Cryptocurrency Stock to BUY NOW

    Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) shares have soared more than 55% and counting in the past year, 2021 (Sun, The Motley Fool). An iconic platform best known as a micro-blogging social network, Twitter is quickly evolving. Moreover, it’s developing into something that’s likely even more influential and lucrative with the rise of cryptocurrencies. 

    Back in July 2021, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jack Dorsey announced that Bitcoin would become a “big part” of Twitter, specifically via integration with the company’s products and services. While this may not be well-known to investors, Twitter has already seen a huge rise in its bottom line due to the influx of cryptocurrency developers (Sun, The Motley Fool).

    An Extremely Unique Advantage for Twitter

    Unlike with stocks, there isn’t a centralized Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) database (called EDGAR), where investors can go and get the latest information and financials for cryptocurrencies; until now. Twitter is quickly beginning to play the role of a “decentralized SEC” for the crypto community. Users can follow developer teams on Twitter, thereby getting the newest information on material changes in protocol, new partnerships, and significant events (the equivalent of 8-Ks at the SEC), as well as regular financial reports (10-Qs and 10-Ks). Furthermore, individuals can even report cryptocurrency tweets deemed to be scams or pump-and-dump schemes. A common practice in the vast majority of equity markets, this leads to a prototype of self-regulation (CFA Institute).

    Due to this phenomenon, Twitter is becoming exceedingly popular among altcoin networks such as Ethereum, Avalanche, Solana, Reserve Rights, Chainlink, Monero, and PirateChain, amongst many others. Their setup has attracted likely millions of users specifically desiring to stay up-to-date with the development of their latest tokens. Twitter’s capitalized on this financially by charging developers to promote their accounts via advertisement spending. Developers are incentivized into this because traffic is organic and directly within their target audience. Through this process, Twitter doesn’t even need to spend money on their own advertising. Celebrities, such as Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk, repeatedly use the platform to tout digital currencies such as Dogecoin to his fans, obviously generating substantial viewing activity.

    Financials Back Up Recent Boost in Success and Future Hype for Twitter

    During the second quarter of 2021, Twitter grew its monetizable daily active user base by 10.8% year over year to 206 million (Twitter, Inc – Financial Information). During the same time, revenue grew by a stunning 74% to $1.19 billion (Twitter, Inc – Financial Information). The company’s earnings have recouped their losses from the pandemic recession. Moreover, they more than doubled in the quarter ending June 30th (Twitter, Inc – Financial Information). They’re very clearly currently on track for stellar growth.

    Additionally, Twitter is doing well in terms of liquidity, with cash and investments outweighing its debt plus convertible notes by a factor of two (Twitter, Inc – Financial Information). Most experts agree it is both a great tech and crypto stock to buy at 10 times revenue. Expect continued profits and share gains as part of the boom in cryptocurrencies.

  • Study Finds Long, Working Hours Kill Nearly a Million Individuals a Year

    According to the WHO (World Health Organization), long-working hours are directly attributed to the death’s of thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands in global cities (check out this past year, alone). We’re talking about nearly a million people in 2016 alone. The study – again conducted by the incredibly prestigious WHO and cited in BBC News – has some truly alarming statistics. This global survey contains data that is some of the first of its kind and begins gathering data to reach the hypothesis that was likely reached as early as 2016 (BBC News Service).

    As this research was being conducted all the way dating back to 2016, it’s vital to note this takes into account labor market conditions mostly prior to the global, COVID-19 pandemic. Following the aftermath of the pandemic, we’ve seen companies adapt more of a hybrid office schedule for employees. We’ve even seen some companies abandon office schedules altogether (at least for the time being). Perhaps once these working conditions began, it was somewhat refreshing to those who commuted to the office everyday. However, as other studies have shown, while many really didn’t mind working from home, some individuals who were previously content with their weekly schedules became increasingly uncomfortable. Nonetheless, as labor market conditions are returning closer to pre-pandemic times, we can likely expect to see a bit more hybrid working schedules, but largely the same pre-pandemic conditions as in 2016 (BBC News Service).

    Some Alarming Conclusions

    Referring back to that 2016 study done by the WHO and initially reported on by BBC News, of the various alarming statistics, the very first one jumps out: 745,000 people died in 2016 as a result of stroke and heart disease due to long working hours. The article goes on to cite several egregious examples of worker abuse. Lora Jones, a 22 year-old described her initial role at a digital marketing firm as “cult-like”, regarding their adherence to a 72-hour minimum work week (Jones, BBC News).

    While this may not surprise many, Goldman Sachs was thrown under the rug for overworking entry-level analysts. One report details entry-level analysts joining together to have a discussion with their managers at Goldman. They asked for an 80-hour work week cap, calling their current working conditions “abusive” and even “inhumane”. Nonetheless, in a subsequent BBC Report, Goldman CEO David Solomon had no problem with – now – a 95-hour work week. While applauding the courage of the entry-level personnel, Solomon noted “going an extra mile can go a long way”. Everyone reading this should understand the meaning of that pretty clearly.

    Furthermore, the research compared those working a 55-hour work week with those working 35-40 hours. It found that those working a 55-hour work week had a 35% higher risk of stroke and a 17% higher risk of dying from heart disease, compared to those working 35-40 hours.

    A final study, conducted by the International Labour Organization (ILO), concluded men were clearly at a higher risk. Specifically, they reported nearly three quarters of those that died due to working long hours were middle-aged or older men.

    What Will The Future Impact Be?

    BBC News continued with additional regurgitations of the same message; there’s a renewed interest in debating US working class conditions. Reports not cited by BBC show CEOs and executives taking great interest in the happiness of their everyday staff. With that, it’s important to note we’re not suggesting these BCC reports are fair portrayals of the average executive attitude, or average company culture. As we noted in the beginning, a key impact will be many companies adapting a hybrid work routine. This should appease both employees who don’t mind working from home and those who want to be in the office.

    While hybrid work schedules aren’t necessarily great news for CRE investors, they are already a reality. This isn’t something companies are considering doing in the long-run; this is something several big companies have pledged to. The list is likely to only keep growing. These positive changes, combined with a renewed interest in publicly debating this topic, bodes well for the working class. For bullish CRE investors, perhaps not so much.

  • Investigating a Critic of Real Estate Investing

    Why Rental Properties Are Not Good Investments

    While real estate continues to be the biggest asset class in the world, there are still asset managers who are skeptical about recommending it to their clients as an investment vehicle. As Andy Rachleff puts it:

    One of the most common pieces of financial advice our clients hear from their friends and family is to invest their excess cash in rental properties. Unfortunately, this is terrible advice for all but a lucky few.


    Andy Rachelff

    The piece goes on to give four distinct reasons for critics’ deviation from traditional logic. Let’s break it down one by one.

    Income Isn’t Guaranteed

    While this is true, this is true when it comes to any financial investment vehicle. According to the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF), as of Q1 2021 the average 25-year return for private commercial real estate properties held for investment purposes slightly outperformed the S&P 500 Index, with average annualized returns of 10.3% and 9.6%, respectively. Residential and diversified real estate investments also averaged returns of 10.3% (NCREIF). Keep in mind, this data takes into account both the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Each calamity gravely deflated assets in the real estate market. So while it’s certainly true that income isn’t guaranteed, over a 25-year period both commercial and residential real estate holdings outperformed the S&P 500 Index. While income is almost never guaranteed, this should make you feel more at ease about investing your money in the real estate sector.

    It’s Hard To Generate A Compelling Return

    Another generic statement that can be said about almost any investment vehicle. If generating a compelling return was easy, everyone would follow the same system. When you invest in real estate, whether it be through direct property management or a REIT, you still maintain some level of ownership over a physical asset. Conversely, with stocks, as an example, you own a piece of a publicly traded company that has a board of directors, executives, and senior management controlling the day-to-day operations. In other words, your money is in the hand’s of others. With the majority of real estate investment vehicles, you are in control. Therefore, you are the one who has the ability to make decisions that generate a more compelling return, versus leaving those decisions in other people’s hands. It’s easier to generate a compelling return when you have control because at the end of the day, no one will care as much about your money as yourself. Additionally, the under 8% net over eight years earned by Weatherfront’s portfolio is not only a logical fallacy as it is only one data point, but their complaint is largely surrounding the tax structure of rental properties investors will have to pay. It is anecdotal data tailored to disprove a very generic argument to begin with.

    It’s Better To Diversify Your Portfolio

    In this section, the writer essentially makes a compelling argument to investing in a REIT versus direct real estate investing. While we’ve covered both strategies in depth, it’s true that in the long-term a REIT, REIG, or some form of pooled investment will mitigate your portfolio’s risk. This is especially true for individual properties that “fall out of favor”, sometimes due to external factors (i.e. COVID-19 pandemic). The writer correctly points out the substantial risk in a situation where you have enough capital to invest in only one property and advises you against it, but then makes a perfect argument for how to actually diversify your capital within the real estate market. After all, diversification is cited by a vast majority a major benefit to the real estate investment sector. Irrespective of how much money you have to invest upfront, you have control over how much risk you want to take on. Therefore you can choose to diversify your real estate portfolio, or you can put all your eggs in one basket. We are in agreement with Weatherfront that the latter generally isn’t advisable.

    Liquidity Matters

    Depending on what approach you take to real estate investing, the writer has a point. If you take a direct approach to real estate investing, you can easily get stuck with an undesirable property. Alternatively, investing in a real estate index fund, gives you the same liquidity as investing in any other index or stock. Nowadays, it’s very rare to see an investor take all their excess investment capital and tie it down in one property. If they do, they’re doing so at their own peril. With so much data available that shows national long-term economic growth is cyclical, one would have to have a very high appetite for risk to directly invest in a single property. Diversification has been proven to be an essential component to any successful investment portfolio.

    Concisely, do we agree with the critic’s assertion to avoid investing in real estate holdings? No, we don’t. While the writer points out some opportunities to improve your real estate investment strategy, they don’t provide a compelling argument to avoid investing in the entire segment. While some data is anecdotal and some is actual, they make a good case to be wary of rental properties. At the same time, they make a great case for diversification through REITs and other real estate index funds. The fact is there will always be critics and skeptics of any investment choices. There are analysts who are paid to do just that. However real estate has been the world’s largest asset class for awhile and it isn’t going anywhere. For investors, it would be wise to embrace that and research the abundant amount of strategies available within the real estate segment. Diversification will always be critical. Especially if you’re not currently invested in the real estate market, it would be prudent to look into various strategies because you’re all but sure to find some that suit either your short or long-term goals.

  • The Future of Capital Markets Technology

    Capital Markets are where savings and investments are channeled between suppliers, people, or institutions with capital to lend or invest — as well as those in need (Hayes, Investopedia). Suppliers typically include banks and investors while those who seek capital are businesses, governments, and individuals. Capital markets are composed of primary and secondary markets.

    The most common capital markets are the stock market and the bond market. However other, more complex, markets include the CRE (Commercial Real Estate) Market, Equity Capital Market (ECM), as well as many others that are typically geared towards a specific investor. Therefore there is not as much trading volume or frequency, since the broader excitement is not the same. Even though real estate is the world’s largest asset class, we’ve seen a recent decline in CRE investment. Medium recently posted an article detailing the advantages of a platform called Beacon Platform, Inc, which was a critical, major acquisition for Centena.

    Medium: Modernizing the Capital Markets Technology Stack: Centana’s Investment in Beacon Platform, Inc.

    Why do customers choose Beacon?

    Time-to-Value and ROI. Today, companies continue to deal with cumbersome internal applications that have been stitched together, often with legacy code and/or 3rd party vendors in the Trading and Risk Management space, which are “black box” and difficult, if not impossible, to alter.

    Beacon’s entire code base is flexible and transparent (i.e. the code is made available to customers) and seamlessly integrates with existing software and other 3rd party solutions (like Murex and Calypso), or in-house proprietary solutions, which helps drive quick time-to-value and high utility.

    In a fraction of the time and cost of alternative solutions, Beacon has helped customers achieve objectives such as migrating workloads to the cloud, expanding into new markets, upgrading legacy code by placing it within a modern developer wrapper and extending analytics and applications to customers’ end-users.

    -Matt Alfieri
    Key Takeaways

    When it comes to capital markets technology, the evolving nature of the tech space all but ensures we will see new technologies introduced into capital markets operations. Additionally, while this may sound like an advertisement for Beacon (though FinYork has absolutely no affiliation to it), the critical feature to note is this is an exemplary illustration of where capital markets technology appears to be heading.

    Vertical SaaS or cloud industry solutions, instead of legacy or proprietary in-house solutions, are showing us that they’re easier to replace than many executives originally thought. You should expect to see a similar effect here as with PropTech, as it becomes more widely available and accepted by savvy executives and high net worth real estate investors. You definitely do not want to be the firm who is continuing to use antiquated capital markets technologies. This puts you at an immediate, huge disadvantage. It makes it that much harder to catch up with your competitors, who have a leg-up as they’ve already implemented innovative technologies.

    All this goes to say that SaaS, digital transformation, cloud technologies, PropTech, and even niche technologies that aim to improve efficiency in capital markets are going to play an integral part of the future. The success of firms who will adapt them largely depends on the success those firms will have in the implementation process. To be sure, capital markets technology is only going to continue getting more efficient, robust, and easier to adapt.