finyork.com

Tag: real estate investing

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • As Fall 2021 Approaches, Will the Housing Market Cool Off?

    Today’s hot housing market is one of the peculiar outliers to the pandemic (Campisi, Forbes). Housing supply was already low before COVID-19, however it was even further hampered, as lockdowns took place, enticing people to begin looking for new homes. Experts have attributed this to a desire to leave populated cities for better home offices during the pandemic.

    The Federal Reserve’s steps in 2020 to keep financial markets liquid and ensure mortgage rates stayed low have continued. The Federal Reserve really deserves tremendous credit for keeping the housing market solidly afloat, virtually throughout the entire pandemic.

    Housing prices nationwide, including distressed sales, grew by 17.2% in June 2021 compared with June 2020 (CoreLogic). According to the latest CoreLogic housing market report, that’s a record high. While there have undoubtedly been “hot seller’s markets” in the past, experts argue they don’t quite compare to the current market, where more than 50% of homes for sale have fetched over the asking price (Campisi, Forbes).

    “We’ve been tracking housing prices for over 20 years, and we’ve never seen anything like this.”


    – Frank Nothaft, Chief Economist at CoreLogic

    Historically, the fall ushers in less competition and thereby better deals, as children return to school and the holidays overtake schedules. But the pandemic altered that trend last year, and many cities are going through double-digit percentage increases in housing prices (Campisi, Forbes).

    Are Housing Prices Starting to Slow Down?

    While a full-fledged celebration might be too easy, prospective homebuyers can breathe a little easier. Based on predictions from real estate experts, prices are beginning to decelerate in some areas. As more inventory of single-family homes becomes available, investors can expect consumer prices to decrease further. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), unsold homes rose 3.3% to 1.25 million from May to June this year (National Association of Realtors). Marginally increased inventory isn’t enough to handle demand; it might give buyers hope and potentially buying leverage with more options.

    “Mortgage applications have dropped to an 18-month low, and we are seeing some real buyer fatigue in the market. Sellers are responding to lower buyer enthusiasm with price reductions.”


    – Tamar Asken, Real Estate Agent at Avenue 8, Los Angeles

    In Northern Virginia, housing prices increased 10.9% year-over-year (YOY) in June 2021, compared to the same time last year. The more affordable areas of Northern Virginia, like Fairfax City, saw a sharper rise in YOY median housing price gains like 15.1%, compared to their more expensive nearby areas like Falls Church, which experienced a significantly smaller rise of just 3.2% (Andrews, Virginia Business).

    “The market in Northern Virginia has slowed significantly during the past month, with fewer offers and longer days on market. While this would be a normal pattern in a typical year, given the intensity of the spring market, it is surprising. It could well be due to an uptick in travel as pandemic restrictions eased.”


    –Ryan McLaughlin, CEO at the Northern Virginia Association of Realtors (NVAR)

    Buyer Behavior is Becoming More Predictable and Rationale

    Succinctly, consumers flocked out to the real estate market last year (Lake, Forbes). As demand for houses picked up, interested buyers have pulled out all the stops to outbid the competition.

    This caused all sorts of strange and certainly even reckless behavior, including buyers forgoing contingencies in the sales contract meant to protect themselves and their earnest money, which can amount to thousands of dollars (Treece, Forbes). Some buyers were using retirement savings, while others were getting loans, so they could appear to be all-cash buyers.

    The good news is that experts seem to agree this “go-for-broke” approach could be declining. Whether it’s because inventory is beginning to ramp up or home prices are flattening, some buyers realize that they might be putting too much on the line. Even Asken says she is noticing that more buyers are now proceeding with caution. Keep in mind she works at a real estate company based in Los Angeles, a notoriously expensive and competitive market.

    “I do not see the same level of desperation and urgency we saw a few months ago. After large price increases, many properties just don’t feel like such a good deal anymore.”


    – Tamar Asken, Real Estate Agent at Avenue 8, Los Angeles

    Mortgage Rates and Housing Price Forecasts for Fall 2021

    While history generally indicates that during a fall is when you can get a better deal on real estate, last year contested all trends with enormous housing market sales growth recorded in the fall season. So, are we likely to see a repeat later this year? Some experts claim demand will go back to its usual cooling-off period in the fall, noting the recent expansion of inventory and retreating home prices (Ralph B. McLaughlin, Chief Economist & SVP of Analytics, Haus, Inc.).

    “I think it’s absolutely likely that price growth will slow throughout the end of the year, as they’re already slowing from their peak in June. We expect price growth to moderate to the mid-high single digits by December.”


    – Ralph B. McLaughlin, Chief Economist & SVP of Analytics, Haus, Inc.

    Nevertheless, McLaughlin added that he doesn’t expect inventory to recover fully until next spring. This is instructive specifically for current, prospective buyers. The best course of action for patiently waiting buyers is to start getting their finances in order now. Waiting to do that until a deal comes along often means you’ll be too late. This is a good time to work on your credit score. A higher score means lower interest rates, which extends to a lower monthly payment. Keep in mind that as home prices rise, so does your down payment requirement. While we’re yet to see a true “cool off” in the housing market, there is plenty of reason to suspect it will continue to slow down substantially.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • The United States NO LONGER Leads the World in CRE Investing

    It’s been covered extensively, but the COVID-19 pandemic has not been kind to CRE investment. Unfortunately, from looking at Real Capital Analytics CRE investment numbers for July 2021 and the general trajectory over a longer-term period, the CRE investing landscape in the US is not likely to change anytime soon (Clark, 2021). That considers far more than the decline in CRE investment we witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It largely considers the reality that the world’s leading financial giants are contemplating a permanent hybrid work schedule. Real estate still continued to dominate as an investor-friendly asset class, in fact the largest in the world. However there’s no doubt CRE subsector investment dropped significantly and is continuing to, as a result of the pandemic. 

    How the US Fell Behind in CRE Investment

    When the COVID-19 pandemic created a recessionary period March 2020 for the United States economy, the EU began flourishing. According to the same Real Capital Analytics report, “US investment volume for deals priced $10 million and greater slipped behind those in Europe by $19 billion” (Clark, 2021). Unfortunately for the US economy, this occurred in simultaneous months. As soon as the EU began to pick up momentum in deals, they grew quicker and larger. The United States economy – largely attributed to government political infighting – was placed on the back burner at that time. Then President Trump was in the heat of his re-election celebrations, until a global pandemic that’s been pegged as worse than the Spanish Flu, came around (Cox, USA Today).

    This understandably sidetracked the Trump administration into both shock and damage control. While lawmakers in the United States were looking for who to blame for the pandemic’s “miss”, a Brookings University study concluded other countries were busy seizing on the opportunity to attract new business. Predominantly African countries, but definitely also many of those previously really hurting in the EU. 

    Jim Costello, Senior Vice President at Real Capital Analytics, described how investors are facing greater uncertainty around “underwriting future income trends for a property” because of the then relatively novel coronavirus.

    “The social safety nets of European countries can look more expensive, but in a time of crisis, they can also help investors understand how economic losses will be distributed. A single large entity-level transaction boosted quarterly European deal activity ahead of that of the US in late 2017, but otherwise the U.S. has been a larger investment market.”

    – Jim Costello, Real Capital Analytics

    Where CRE Investment in the US Currently Stands and the Outlook Moving Forward

    It’s worth noting the report states that in under normal circumstances, the US is the world’s “most liquid region” for commercial real estate activity. However, in the second quarter of the 2020, Europe moved past the US as a “hub for investment” (Clark, 2021). The trend is yet to discontinue. As CRE investing, raising capital through debt issuances, crowdfunding, and other methods of obtaining credit for CRE projects are rapidly declining, investor confidence is dropping in parallel. While data hasn’t favored bullish CRE investors since the onset of COVID-19, we’ve continued to cover hypothetical positive CRE resurgences.

    Nearing the conclusion of Jim Costello’s findings, different calculations tell the same story. Commercial real estate holdings in the US are not the most advisable investment presently (Costello, 2021). The early figures for July show a double-digit decline in the number of commercial real estate deals in the US. However, deal volume for July is projected to be more than $10 billion. In 2009 – the last officially recorded recession – deal activity averaged around $6 billion per month for the whole year and was closer to $5 billion for July (Costello, 2021).

    The findings Jim Costello referred to align with data collected by Statista, a well-known statistics portal for large market data.

    Figure 1 – Commercial Real Estate Investment Volume in US, 2019-2020 ($B of USD)
    Source: Statista Consumer Data, 2021
    Figure 2 – Totaled Values of Commercial Real Estate Sold in US, 2019-2020 ($B of USA)
    Source: Statista Consumer Data, 2021

    “So while conditions in the US are poor, as of yet, investment activity is not as bad as the last downturn, the commercial real estate data suggests that there is less confidence in the US at the moment.”

    – Jim Costello, Real Capital Analytics

    Those final words from Jim Costello in this piece concisely summarize the point we’ve been driving home. While you may not agree with Jim’s rationale, the data does not lie. CRE investments in the US have been going downward since the start of COVID-19 and furthermore, the vast majority of reputable real estate financial analysts would not agree CRE is the best real estate vehicle to invest in at this time, at least relatively passively. It’s perhaps most important to conclude by reminding investors of the 2008 recession, ultimately collapsing from a massive residential housing market bubble. The lessons of 2008 not only taught investors, but also regulators to be vigilant of potential bubbles with systemic risks. However in this case, all the experts suggest the “crash” of US CRE investing during COVID-19 had to do with consumer confidence.

    Once it began to fall, CRE investing opportunities essentially bottomed out because investors ran to relocate their assets. From placing investments much more frequently in REITS and other well diversified real estate vehicles, direct CRE investors became harder and harder to come by. When you add hybrid work schedules, to a push for more productive work-at-home time, and bottom line cost cuts from closing down “brick-and-mortar” offices, at best, the uncertainty of the delta variant in the COVID-19 virus is continuing to hold back CRE investing in the US. At worst – or most likely – CRE investing in the US is, at least temporarily, does not appear to favor any realistic bullish outlook.

  • 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.

  • Technological & Digital Disruption

    While it’s commonly known that tech disruption is rapidly occurring, are you aware of which sectors of the US economy are being transformed the most? Initially presented in a Microsoft Business Forward forum, this research is key to assessing the sectors that need to gear up and prepare to deal with the newest technologies. The chart below substantiates just how much technological innovation and digital transformation are disrupting critical, traditional sectors within the nation’s economy.

    Top 6 Industries Impacted by Technological & Digital Disruption

    Microsoft: Top 6 Sectors Affected by Tech / Digital Disruption (Satya Nadella, 2020)

    PropTech addresses technological innovation specifically in the real estate segment. Moreover, you’ll notice that the Top 6 industries affected are most likely ones you come across in your everyday life. What does this mean for management, consumers, and the working class (specifically in these industries)? The article that complements Satya’s research shares a grim prognostication:

    “Digital disruption is well upon us. While a survey conducted by the Global Center for Digital Business Transformation for the large and mid-sized private sector companies agreed, to varying degrees, that digital disruption comes with its own set of benefits, it is also true that Digital Disruption is threatening the survival of many businesses and industries.

    Futuristic businesses and start-ups are exploring new avenues of re-inventing their business activities and industries all together to compete with and dislodge incumbents. The last decade alone has witnessed some exponential progress in technological disruption – think Airbnb, Paytm, Netflix and Uber.

    And this disruption is gradually influencing every industry, including banking, healthcare, hospitality, construction, manufacturing, packaging, logistics, and insurance amongst others (discussed in detail by Satya in Microsoft’s 2020 Keynote Forum).”

    Embee Staff

    Conclusion: What Does This Mean for Real Estate Investors?

    Succinctly, to have longevity in a given industry, the necessity for technological innovation has proven to be non-negotiable. Avoiding this reality will get you nowhere – or worse, out of business – quickly. As the abundance of digital and cloud transformation technologies are increasing, many are finding themselves playing catch-up. The information Microsoft presented suggests nearly all industries will be behind if they refuse to acknowledge technological progress. Not only acknowledge it, but make drastic changes, as necessary, to adapt alongside it.

    We’ve summarized the role technological innovation will play at length in the real estate market moving forward, specifically. Finally, ponder this. Imagine the impact to real estate markets, even globally, if critical industries and large corporations were to fall ‘behind-the-curve‘. What would this mean for CRE investors, who have continued to struggle as of late? The data study produced by Microsoft illustrates just how cataclysmic failures to adapt to new technologies – no matter the reason – can cause widespread fragility beyond the individual companies, or even those particular industry segments. It’s imperative to always look at the bigger picture. In this case, failure to adapt to new technologies will almost certainly cause broad, undesired consequences for investors.

  • 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.