I had a spirited chat with a friend this week about a house in Atlanta that just hit the market. We debated how long it will take to sell. I think it will sell within a week, and my friend thinks it will take a few months. Surprised, I dug into his why. He things it’s overpriced and that a price reduction will be needed to move it after it sits unsold for a few weeks. I think the price is fair. The true disconnect is what we think the house is worth.

After more back and forth, I got to the root of our disagreement. I’m bullish on Atlanta. I think the city offers qualities other major metros can’t that make it a place people see themselves settling down in and calling home for the long term. And pandemic dynamics contribute to it being a desirable destination. Home prices reflect this and are likely to continue increasing for the foreseeable future. I believe that prices are fair relative to where they’ll be in the future.

My friend has lived in Atlanta for a long time. He remembers a glut of houses on the market after the financial crisis and some now-trendy neighborhoods being seedy. He believes Atlanta is in a real estate bubble and prices will drop at some point. In other words, he believes current prices are inflated relative to historical prices.

As I reflected on our conversation, I realized that we had different perspectives: I was focused on the future, and he was focused on the past.

Looking at an opportunity, I’m a fan of future thinking. I wasn’t always like this. Flipping this mental switch transformed how I analyze opportunities. I’m able to see opportunity and capitalize on it because I can still see it as “cheap.” If things go as I predict, the asset will increase in value, and I will have gotten a deal at its current price. It’s irrelevant that I didn’t buy at the cheapest historical price, a consideration that I view as a mental trap.

Personal finance has been a hobby of mine since high school. When I hear founders solving for problems in this area, I’m always interested. Today a founder shared some interesting insights that got me thinking. One of the biggest challenges I’ve seen is that most tools to help people manage their finances are outside the normal consumer flow. If you want to save for a big purchase or just stick to a budget, it can be difficult. Part of the challenge is that these tools are usually independent apps that the user utilizes after a transaction has occurred.

Digital wallets on smartphones are gaining traction. I believe that in the not-so-distant future, we will no longer carry a wallet in our purse or back pocket. Everything—driver’s license, credit cards, etc.—will be in our digital wallet. The digital wallet will be how we make purchases, and it will become the center of gravity for consumer purchases. When that happens, we’ll see the next evolution of personal finance tools, because they’ll be built into the consumer’s purchasing flow. They’ll be able to affect the buying decision before it’s completed. This could lead to sustained behavior change, which many of us desperately need if we’re to improve our financial situation.  

I’m not sure when the digital wallet will be adopted by the masses, but when it is, it could have a big impact on consumer spending habits.

I listened as an investor described what he’s seeing in the world of investing: a “land grab for high-quality assets.” He’s been an investor for years, so I was curious to hear his definition of high quality, which turned out to be a rapid growth rate that can be sustained. He doesn’t think a specific number defines rapid growth; rather, grown is relative to others in the sector or business model. As for the meaning of sustained, he wants to see a path to maintaining the growth rate for at least three years.

His perspective is interesting. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, but I respect it. Sustained growth is great, but combining it with profitability is even better, in my book. I’m not saying that a company has to be profitable to be great, but sustained rapid growth and profitability is an amazing combination that’s difficult to achieve. The companies that have it are the ones I view as being in a league of their own.

A friend read my post about individual investors becoming more of a force. We had a good chat about it today. Here’s my takeaway:

Investor knowledge gap – Just as early-stage founders have gaps in their knowledge about raising capital, lots of investors have gaps in their knowledge about deploying capital into early-stage tech companies. They see what’s happening, want to participate, and have the capital, but they don’t know where to start. This is beginning to change. Information is more readily available. More platforms are making it easier for would-be investors to find and participate in tech deals and connect with and learn from other investors. As more individual investors learn about and gain access to investment opportunities and find their community, they’ll start deploying capital.

Great chat today with my buddy. We’re both looking forward to the rise of the individual investor.

I’ve been interested in personal finance and investing since adolescence. I’ve always read about them as much as possible, and I even crowdsourced financial advice when I got my first job offer. Usually, I was in the minority in my circle of friends. Finance and investing just weren’t things that many were interested in or cared to talk about. Over the past eighteen months, that has changed drastically. Investing and finances are regular topics in my various friend groups.

Consumer interest in investing and personal finance will continue to expand. Information is more readily available, fees have been virtually eliminated, and access to platforms is easier. This is leading more people to take a hands-on approach. They’re learning and applying their knowledge. I think this will be a positive trend in the long term, but there may be a period of adjustment in the short term.

Public investments like the stock market are most accessible, and that’s where many consumers have recently gotten their feet wet. As they get more comfortable investing, I suspect interest in investing in private companies will grow. If that happens, entrepreneurs will likely see more willingness among their friends and family to invest in their early ventures. This will have pros and cons but, I think, net out as positive. Founders will have access to more capital to build businesses. Consumers will be able to invest in private companies that serve their communities and hopefully see financial gains that they can reinvest in more founders.

I think the next decade or so will be one of change and disruption like nothing we’ve ever seen. Investing will look radically different in the future. I’m excited to watch the rise of the individual investor and how their capital will change the entrepreneurial landscape.

I spent time today pondering an intriguing idea of someone I respect. He believes technology is evolving so quickly that with respect to company valuations, the next decade won’t look like any other. The rate of change and disruption will be like nothing we’ve ever seen and result in valuations higher than we’ve ever seen. Historical valuation norms will be useless as benchmarks for the future.

This person believes these higher valuations will be difficult to grasp initially. But once it’s clear they aren’t going away (for a variety of reasons), people will quickly embrace the trend en masse, which may push them even higher.

This is an interesting concept. I’m not sure if I agree, but I can’t rule it out, either. I want to digest it further. If this person is correct, it will have broad implications, and not all of them will be good.

I read the reflections of a successful investor recently. Most of his insights had to do with why he and his team had been successful. One factor is that they focused on a sector that was target rich—meaning the incumbents were highly profitable in comparison with other companies globally. These incumbents weren’t keeping up with changing consumer behavior, though, so the sector was in need of modernization.

This was an interesting insight. Large, highly profitable companies were solving problems, creating value for customers. But their solutions weren’t keeping up with the pace of change, so they were outdated. This created an opening for a new solution.

This investor identified companies that were solving well-known problems. There was no need to wonder if the problem was painful enough for customers to pay for a solution; that had already been validated. The market size had also been validated by the incumbents’ large and profitable businesses.

This investor believes that investing in a target-rich sector significantly increased his chances of success. He thinks an average investor in a target-rich sector can win out over a great investor in a sector full of great competitors.

I like this reflection, and I think it’s a strategy some founders can leverage too. Focusing on a sector or problem that’s proven and ripe for disruption will likely increase your chances of success (assuming you have founder/market fit).

Today I spent time learning about a company. Generally, public perception of it is slightly negative. I’ve followed the company for some time, and after my research today I arrived at a different conclusion. I’m bullish on the company. I think it has a good future. I shared this opinion with a few friends, who all pointed to public sentiment. They suggested the crowd is likely right and it’s not a wise investment.

Today reminded me of my early days as a founder: I see something others don’t. When I explain what I see, others dismiss it or disagree. After I start my company and we have meaningful traction, others begin to believe what I’d always believed—that my startup could be something big.

The fact that others don’t see the potential in this company signals to me that it could be an opportunity for an outsize return. These types of opportunities don’t come along often. I’ll continue to research and will likely go with my (educated) instincts and pull the trigger on this investment.

‍

A friend shared an article with me today. It’s about an institutional investor, ReAlpha, planning to spend $1.5 billion to buy 5,000 homes to rent out. I’ve followed institutional buyers of single-family homes for the last decade. Atlanta is one of the biggest markets for companies like Invitation Homes and American Homes 4 rent, both of which are publicly traded and own tens of thousands of single-family homes across the country that they rent out on a long-term basis. The strategy has worked well as home prices and rental rates have steadily increased since the financial crisis.

The article discussed a slightly different strategy: purchasing thousands of homes to rent out short-term on Airbnb. The idea isn’t new, but it hasn’t been pursued at scale by institutional investors. The customer acquisition strategy is intriguing. Instead of acquiring customers (i.e., renters) through traditional sales and marketing efforts, they plan to acquire them on Airbnb, which is a marketplace.

Marketplaces are places where buyers and sellers connect. Using a marketplace to acquire customers is an attractive and capital-efficient strategy for sellers. The fee (or take rate) is usually a fixed percentage of the revenue a buyer pays. That leads to a highly predictable customer acquisition cost. Sellers pay X cents for every dollar in revenue from buyers. Sellers don’t have to worry about paying to attract potential buyers who never pan out; they pay only to acquire revenue-producing customers. Sellers don’t even need to take on sales or marketing—they need only have the ability to service customers.

This approach has downsides, and the customer relationship is a big one. The marketplace owns the customer relationship. Buyers aren’t loyal to the seller they transact with; they’re loyal to the marketplace. Concentration is also a big risk. If you get all your customers from a single source that you don’t control, changes can significantly affect your revenue. Lots of stories circulate about businesses being crushed when a marketplace they rely on changes how listings are displayed or suspends their account.

If ReAlpha moves forward with these plans, it will be a huge growth opportunity for Airbnb. I’d imagine ReAlpha will seek discounts on Airbnb’s fees, but even so this could unlock a new product offering with the potential for massive scale in Airbnb’s platform.

I’ll be watching to see how this evolves.

‍

I’ve always been a fan of nice shoes. There’s an old saying: when you look good, you feel good. I think shoes are a big part of that. Shoes have transcended their purpose as foot coverings and become an asset class. And marketplaces like GOAT and StockX have helped illuminate just how much enthusiasts value shoes.

This got me thinking more about alternative asset classes. I’d imagine there are other tangible items that are prime to be turned into an alternative asset class. Their intended purpose at creation was X, but people now place more value on them—to the point that they don’t plan to use them as X. Instead, they’ll prize them for their monetary value or put them on display, or both.

Lots of items have been turned into alternative asset classes already (think art and wine), but I believe there’s a second-wave opportunity. Somebody with vision just needs to recognize a category of items that’s never been thought of as an asset class but that now resonates more with the masses or perhaps with younger generations and that owners value immensely. When they do, they’ll have a big opportunity to help owners legitimize the category as an alternative asset class.

If you’re a founder and passionate about something you own, consider solving this problem for yourself and others. It could be a huge market.