Start typing to search this publication.
Brandon Donnelly logo Brandon Donnelly
Open menu
Brandon Donnelly logo

Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly

Get new posts delivered straight to your inbox.

Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 349

Cover image for Learning French, again

Learning French, again

  • Alliance-francaise
  • French-class
  • French-school

I grew up going to a French school. For a significant portion of my early education, I had every single class -- except English class -- in French. But to be honest, I never really loved it. I had started midway through elementary school and so I always felt like my French was never quite good enough.

I was behind relative to my classmates. I needed special tutoring to get caught up (while my classmates were off learning a third language). And so I used to constantly beg my mom to take me out of French school and put me in a, you know, regular English school. I know this was tough for my mom, but her response was always steadfast: "You'll thank me when you're older."

At the time, I couldn't possibly imagine her ever being correct with this statement. But it turns out, she was. Today, I'm grateful to be able to travel to a place like Paris and kind of speak the language. (I say kind of because, hey, it's been a long time since high school!)

And I'm grateful that when I go into Mabel's Bakery across from Junction House that I can order a coffee and a croissant in French. (Most of the people there are from France. Try it for yourself. They're lovely humans.)

In fact, I enjoy it so much that I recently decided to enroll in a French class at Alliance Française here in Toronto. (Fresh $80 textbook pictured above.) Obviously the 9-year-old version of myself would be completely shocked with this absurd decision. But I guess this is just what happens when you've been indoctrinated from a young age.

Or maybe I just really want to build something in France one day.

1/21st of a second home

  • August
  • Barcelona
  • Cannes

I don't know for exactly how long, but for a very long time people have been trying to solve this real estate problem: "I have a desire to own a home, or multiple homes, around the world. However, I don't know how often I'd actually use it/them, and this desire is both expensive and a pain in the ass."

And so unless you have a lot of money and can make the pain in the ass part go away, there seems to exist an ongoing need to make fulfilling this desire both cheaper and easier. Perhaps the most common ways are through a timeshare property or through some kind of fractional ownership structure, where you own a share of a property.

Some companies are even "tokenizing" this second structure on blockchains. I have read about one company that is buying vacation homes and then issuing 365 corresponding tokens. Each token represents 1 day of occupancy (and actual title ownership apparently). In theory this sounds kind of neat, but you're also buying a second home with potentially 364 other strangers.

So here's another approach that I just learned about. The UK-based company, August , has devised a model that works like this:

  • August starts with "homeowner curation." Meaning, they start by vetting homeowners to make sure that they're not weird or something.

  • Once they have a suitable collection of homeowners, August sets up a new real estate entity that all of the homeowners must then fund equally.

  • This entity, by way of August, goes out and buys 5 properties, and each homeowner receives an equal share of the ownership. (Typically, they target 16-21 groups per entity.)

  • August renovates the 5 properties, gets them ready for occupancy, and then manages them on ongoing basis. This includes bookings.

  • Finally, each homeowner gets an average of 8-10 weeks per year across all of their homes.

In terms of the homes themselves, their pied-à-terre collection includes homes in Paris, Rome, Cannes, Barcelona, and London. They are typically between 70-100 square meters with 2 bedrooms and 1-2 bathrooms. And the average price/value is supposedly around €1,250,000 (post-renovation?), with the entry price of a share starting at €340,000.

I'm not sure if this share figure is based on 21 homeowners, but if it is, then that's €7,140,000 of equity being raised in order to buy somewhere around €6,250,000 of real estate. Is the spread their margin for setting this all up? There's also an annual fee per owner (€8,600), which presumably covers operating costs and the ongoing management of the properties.

A model like this naturally provokes a lot of questions. What happens if somebody wants to sell? Does the next buyer need to be similarly vetted for overall weirdness? And how liquid is 1/21st of a 5-property apartment portfolio? I don't know these answers, but intuitively these shares have got to be less liquid than a 100% sale.

However, as a solution to the problem of "I have a desire to own homes across Europe but I'm not quite rich enough to make it truly carefree", this seems like a pretty clever solution.

What's land worth?

  • Development
  • Development-pro-forma
  • Highest-and-best-use

Generally speaking, the value of a piece of land depends on what you can do with it. If the highest-and-best use is agriculture, then it might be worth $X. But if the highest-and-best use is a supertall skyscraper, then it's going to be worth a lot more than $X.

This is why the land component is typically thought of as the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Start with what you can build, forecast your revenues and expenses, and then see what is left over and can be attributed to the land. This is, at least in theory, how the mechanics should work.

An interesting thought exercise, though, is to consider how different developers might value the exact same piece of land.

One obvious scenario is that a developer could just get their forecasts wrong. For instance, maybe they understate their costs, which then leads them to believe that they can pay more for the land. In this case, an error makes them the highest bidder.

In a rising market, there will also be developers who believe that they can almost certainly collect higher revenues in the future. In this case, the most bullish developer often becomes the highest bidder for land. And as long as the market continues to rise, they might not be wrong.

But things change in a slower or flat market.

Now the market isn't there to save you if you happen to overpay for land. It's a less forgiving environment. But it's also a market where you really benefit from conservative underwriting and solid execution. Now it's these groups who are the high bidders.

And I know that some/many developers prefer it this way.

Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.