View Transcript
Ryan Morfin:
Mitchell, welcome to the show. Thank you for coming on.
Mitchell Sabshon:
Ryan, thank you so much for having me.
Ryan Morfin:
Well, we were just talking a moment ago, every four to eight years, 1031 becomes a talking point on campaigns, and a lot of our advisors utilize the 1031 Exchange for their clients. Maybe we can go right into the heart of the matter. What are your views of the realistic expectations of changing this? Would changing 1031 turn the real estate market into maybe a financial crisis?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, I think if the provision section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code were repealed, it would have a significant negative impact, not just on the real estate industry, but on the economy as a whole. As your viewers understand, section 1031 provides that, when an owner of income producing real estate sells that real estate, if they comply with the specific requirements of section 1031 and take the proceeds, all a part of that sale, and roll it into a new real estate investment, they can defer in whole or in part the tax and most likely, capital gains tax, on that transaction. And of course, there has been discussion, as we were talking about, every four to eight years, that is the deferral of that taxation somehow depriving the federal government of tax revenues that could otherwise be deployed. And with the coming election, certainly section 1031 is a hot topic.
Ryan Morfin:
And so, the two different camps, I think have different perspectives. I believe Trump campaign is a real estate entrepreneur, so I’m sure he loves 1031. But what is President Joe candidate, Joe Biden, said about the 1031?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, the planks of Joe Biden and the Democratic party’s platform have not been fully revealed, but there certainly has been preliminary discussion that there is looking to be ways to increase tax revenue to fund a broad variety of federal projects and programs. In particular, there has been some discussion, that the Democratic party might choose to have repealed section 1031. And the revenue generated from that repeal would be deployed into programming for both younger children and senior citizens. More than that, we haven’t heard specifics. And then of course the supporters of section 1031, whether it be President Trump, the Republican party or business people generally, believe that there are very pro-economic benefits of section 1031; far beyond the mere tax revenue. And, as a result, to repeal 1031 would have a material negative impact on the economy.
Ryan Morfin:
Yeah. I mean, if there’s a reset in valuation expectations based off of capital structure tax, it surely is going to impair the balance sheets of the banks, would you agree?
Mitchell Sabshon:
I’m sorry, the balance sheet of?
Ryan Morfin:
Of the commercial banks that have lent a lot of the money to the real estate industry.
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, I think that’s one component. If section 1031 were repealed, clearly there would be reduced demand for new commercial real estate, new commercial real estate transactions. It would have a depressing value on real estate, commercial real estate generally, and therefore increase the degree of leverage as a percentage that banks have on real estate. So if you have a loan that is a 60% loan to current value, and the value drops, that loan could go to 70% of loan to value. I feel in that regard, though, there is sufficient cushion in most classes of real estate to absorb that impact. But I think the fundamental issue that needs to be appreciated here is that many people look at the tax deferral of section 1031, and the dollars of tax that have been deferred, and say,” couldn’t that be used for other purposes if the federal government could capture those dollars?”, but that is an overly simplistic view of section 1031, because there is very much an upstream, downstream effect of section 1031.
Mitchell Sabshon:
First of all, it helps the growth of businesses, in particular small and medium sized businesses, who may have outgrown their current operations into the efficient and more productive and employ more people, have to move into larger quarters. And the tax burden, if section 1031 were repealed would be a disincentive to those kinds of moves. In addition, a tremendous amount of people are involved in the real estate industry, from real estate agents and brokers and escrow agents and appraisers and lawyers. And as you point out, lenders and surveyors, and on and on and on, and those people all make incomes and in turn pay income taxes, federal and state; most states, income taxes, until you really have to look at the amount of tax dollars that are deferred from section 1031 versus the positive tax revenues that are generated from the continued growth of businesses as well as the employment creation of jobs.
Mitchell Sabshon:
And the research has been quite clear that section 1031 in actuality, when all the factors are taken into account, is extremely revenue positive for the federal government and very much a generator of economic growth.
Ryan Morfin:
And it’s really a tax on main street, because only 5% of these exchanges are held at corporations, right? 95% of them are small and medium sized accredited investors.
Mitchell Sabshon:
That’s an excellent point. It is true that small investors and small businesses are among the biggest users of section 1031. I’ve already talked about small business owners being able to grow their businesses. But you look at individuals, and one of the great things about our country is people can start with so very little and grow over time, and you see, especially real estate, which has been a path for so many families for, since the creation of our country. And they make a real estate investment and they work hard and they grow it. And then, at some point in time, they feel that that property is appreciated and they can sell that property. And because they’re not taxed, they can take the full dollars or using 1031 because the tax is deferred, they can take those dollars and invest in a more valuable real estate that will have all of the benefits that I just referred to.
Mitchell Sabshon:
But in addition, that individual, that family is slowly growing their own family wealth, their own quality of life. You can look at farmers. Also, farmers are a big user of 1031. It allows them to consolidate their real estate or to sell off real estate that is not particularly productive for their properties and redeploy that money in other areas for families that have operated farms for generations, and who are now leaving the farming industry, they can sell that land and protect their multigenerational wealth that they have created. Also, from a conservation perspective, we see a tremendous amount of real estate that is either sold to conservation organizations or sell easements that they won’t use a portion of their real estate for, let’s say, crop production.
Mitchell Sabshon:
And that benefits numerous conservation initiatives, and is motivated by the fact that taxes are deferred. And in fact, I think that’s an extremely important point to make. I keep making the distinction, taxes defer, because research shows that 88% of the real estate that is sold in a section 1031 tax deferred transactions, ultimately taxes are paid on that real estate when they are subsequently sold in a non-1031 transaction. So this is really not about tax avoidance in any way, it’s really about tax deferral. That small percentage that is not eventually taxed, it’s because the owner passes away or it’s transferred in a divorce or a court ordered settlement or eminent domain. All things from public policy perspective that we encourage. But again, 88% of all 1031 transactions ultimately pay taxes on that real estate.
Ryan Morfin:
And what do you think would be the negative GDP impact, if they did repeal the 1031 Exchange?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, there was research done a few years back. I believe it’s being updated by Ernst and Young, the accounting firm. I think back then, I think the impact [of repealing section 1031] was actually a negative impact when all the factors I referred to were taken into account, but it’s less than 10 basis points. It’s less than one 10th of 1%. I think the estimate of the impact that [repeal] of 1031 could be as much as between eight and $13 billion a year. So between 80 and $130 billion over 10 years, that seems like a big number, but in the scheme of things, I think Ernst and Young eyeballed about seven basis points. And so the impact is not material in either direction.
Ryan Morfin:
No, that’s very interesting that it’s so small, you would expect it to be a lot bigger, but maybe it’s just the talking point that they’re trying to manufacture. But that’s not a lot of money when you look at the federal government budget.
Mitchell Sabshon:
No, it’s not. And I think that rightfully so, the government should be looking at opportunities to create revenue, and that seems to be, to some audiences, an attractive poster child, because as you said earlier in our discussion, that it’s a little bit misleading. The perception is that big corporations or ultra high net worth investors are the real beneficiaries of section 1031. And from a marketing perspective, saying that a provision is a loophole for fat cat, rich people and rich corporations, but the reality is, one, it is used substantially by small businesses and small investors. And two, as I said, it’s really a GDP positive impact. But it’s an easy candidate for tax reform.
Ryan Morfin:
Do you think this political environment is different than years past, where this becomes an election discussion point? Do you think there’s a real risk about this getting passed in the new administration?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, so you’ve asked me a two part question and I’ll give you two answers. I do think the environment is different. Clearly, I think there has, whatever your political affiliation, I think we have seen a real backlash to some of the pro-business policies of the current administration, in particular, that President Trump comes from a commercial real estate background. I think that the platform, I saw the Democratic Convention the first night last night, and I think the message really is about bringing Americans together at all economic levels. And so I think a challenge to any perceived big business or tax loophole, certainly will be in the crosshairs initially. So I do see a change in that environment. But having said that, section 1031 is in reality, just one small provision as we point out, economically not that significant, of the overall revenue structure of our tax code.
Mitchell Sabshon:
And as a result, most elected politicians in the House and the Senate are really unfamiliar with section 1031 and its impact. And I think that there will be a concerted effort to educate elected members of Congress as to the positive aspects of section 1031 on the economy. And I think that right minded people will ultimately say, as appealing as repeal might be on first glance, I think when intelligent people do a deeper dive, they will see that that provision has been in the code for, I think it’s 99 years, maybe rounded to a hundred years, because from a public policy perspective, it’s very attractive to our country.
Ryan Morfin:
Well, maybe we take a step back, and how was the 1031 market evolving, leading into Q1 of 2020? And then with this great pause that we’ve gone through, how has it changed in Q3?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, I think real estate generally, has certainly been impacted in very clear ways over the course of 2020. I think the 1031 market in particular across all kinds of property types was robust. My own firm specializes in syndicated section 1031 transactions, so we are many investors, small investors are grouped together and participate in a 1031 Exchange together. It allows the small investor to participate in investment in high quality institutional type real estate. That business was in line nationally to have another record year. Clearly, the second quarter of 2020 when shelter at home strategies, closing of non-essential businesses, was materially implemented, Investors stepped back from the market, taking a wait and see look, and to see how transactions would be impacted.
Mitchell Sabshon:
There were many transactions where investors were willing to walk away from hard money deposits, because the concern was that the actual value of a transaction, had they taken it to closing, might take a bigger hit, a larger loss than the money they would be walking away from. And so we saw that across real estate generally. However, a couple of things occurred. The Federal Government extended the deadlines for some investors engaged in section 1031 Exchanges, allowing the 45 day identification requirement, and 180 day closing requirement to be extended to July 15th, and gave investors more time to look at the market. And I think what we’ve seen, our investors now, who were taking that wait and see position, are now transacting. And I would say, a total guesstimate, it’s a little visceral, but I would say that the market volume is down probably just about 20% over last year.
Mitchell Sabshon:
All things considered, I think that is actually doing pretty well in light of so much dislocation in real estate, in particular property types. So, we have seen really no change in the pricing of multifamily, of apartment buildings. That is a very robust, very pricey market. We are certainly seeing five and even four capitalization rate transactions. Same thing can be said for self-storage transactions, manufactured housing transactions, distribution centers, certain industrial types of real estate. As you would not be surprised, the two or three areas that have been most impacted negatively in terms of pricing are lodging, hotels, retail, bricks and mortar retail, with so many stores closing, and now a fair amount actually declaring bankruptcy, or at least Chapter 11. And a big question mark over student housing as well. So much online classes. So clearly there are sectors of the real estate industry that have been materially impacted and others that seem to be going along full steam ahead.
Ryan Morfin:
And what would you say, are there transactions where buyers and sellers are agreeing on a new evaluation framework today, or is the bid-ask still very wide and people aren’t agreeing to trade?
Mitchell Sabshon:
I think on the property types that I suggested have done well; multifamily, self storage, manufactured housing. Traditionally, in a seller’s market, the seller hold firm and the buyers say, “No way am I transacting at that level.” But, then six months later, they seem to understand that, if they want to buy real estate, they’re going to have to step up and pay those prices. And so I think we are seeing that kind of dynamic in the property types that have been least impacted by COVID-19. In the case of lodging and bricks and mortar retail, there is a great disparity in capitalization rates, maybe by as much as 150 basis points or more. And, as a result, there are very few transactions going on in the bricks and mortar retail space and lodging.
Mitchell Sabshon:
And quite candidly, if buyers and sellers were closer in those markets, they would have a very difficult time getting financing right now from the banks.Financing for apartment building, is at I believe absolute record lows. We’re seeing low 200 spreads over Treasuries, and I’ve even heard a little bit about sub 200 spreads on financing apartment buildings, but try to get a loan on a shopping center or certainly a mall or a hotel right now. You’ll be pretty hard pressed to find a lender.
Ryan Morfin:
You guys are a large investor also in office, how is your view on the remote work environment, and the office property type? What are your thoughts on that?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, first of all, let me say that Inland has not been a significant investor in office for a number of years. We do have some amount of assets in the portfolio, but have not made an acquisition in awhile. That’s actually an excellent question, because there were two schools of thought, and I don’t think we’ve seen enough time pass to truly appreciate the impact of this experience. Many will tell you that working remotely in many kinds of fields has been actually quite successful and quite doable. And so what we’ve seen here is an acceleration of a societal trend in the work environment. And then the question becomes, will that persevere, God-willing, when effects of COVID-19 are well in the rear view mirror? And those two schools of thoughts are the following.
Mitchell Sabshon:
First of all, there are those who say we’re going to need less space, because more people will work remotely, but at the same time, you also have those who will be working in offices will likely now require far more square footage. There was a trend for years of smaller and smaller square footag, for each employee in an office and for an open work environment, the collaborative benefits of working in an open work environment. And now I think that we’re going to see likely the trend move in the opposite direction, more square footage per employee, and more office space as opposed to open architecture. And so you have those two schools of thought; more people working remotely, less demand for workspace, office space, but on the other hand, the office space that is there, is going to be fully used. And I wish I could tell you I knew which was going to transpire, but I don’t have that crystal ball myself.
Ryan Morfin:
Yeah, that’s going to be very interesting, and it really is impacting. I mean, as these businesses, some of these retail businesses, their corporate back offices go out of business as well. It’s going to be a lot of increased vacancy. Have you seen any new leases being written or what’s the impact been to kind of the leasing of new properties, whether it’s office or industrial or? How are the cashflows being kind of impacted by this, in your view?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, I think that there are the haves and the have nots. So I think that, certainly, retail and my own firm has a very significant retail portfolio. We have seen leases signed, where tenants really don’t know what the future of their business will be. And when they underwrite their own operations and ability to pay rent, really have a limit of what they can pay. And landlords are in a very difficult position because if they tell a tenant, no, we’re not going to cut a deal at that level, and the tenant actually does leave, you now have a vacant space, and there are far less tenants. And none of them may be in any greater position to pay the higher rents. So I think that in all but the most high demand retail spaces we are seeing rent growth flat, not shrinking, but flat. And real estate people tend to like to underwrite positive growth. In the retail sector, underwriting growth of two or 3% annually, would be a norm. And we’re not seeing any of that growth at all at the moment.
Ryan Morfin:
And are the banks holistically working with owners or landlords of retail to give them forbearance? Or I mean, we’ve had unprecedented demand destruction just from the stay at home economy. Everything’s moving digital, at least for the short term. Are the banks working with landlords to try to bridge this environment?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Yes, I think so. Certainly, our own experience and anecdotally conversations with my peers, the banks understand that, certainly, what we’re going through now is a temporary challenge. We’ll have to see what the longterm effects are. But banks don’t want to take back the real estate. Banks want to work with their landlords and that’s across all types of real estate right now. And so there is some willingness within reason to waive certain covenants on a temporary basis or modify loan arrangements on a go forward basis. It’s also that we have seen a number of landlords and tenants restructure deals, where the restructured deal might be something like, “Look, give us, the tenant, three, four, six months of partial rent relief.”
Mitchell Sabshon:
Not forgiveness, but relief. I’ll pay, by way of example, 50% of my rent for the next six months. And then I will start to pay not only my full rent, but pay back what I’ve deferred, maybe as additional monthly rent, but maybe spread over a 12 month or a 24 month period. And the bank see that the landlords and the tenants are working together for the common good of both, and the banks are pretty much getting on board and working quite closely for the same goal.
Ryan Morfin:
And there’s a lot of retailers, unfortunately, they’ve gone out of business this year. I mean, are we getting close to the end of the disruption here in retail as a sector? Or do you think there’s maybe more pain in the second wave coming ahead?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, there’s a couple of things going on, Ryan. First of all, to step back, retailers who have not changed their model of how they market, how they present their stores and their merchandise, eventually have to pay the consequences. That’s true of every business and retail is no different. So, there is a meaningful part of the bankruptcies that we have seen over, let’s say, the past four or five years, that were clearly justifiable in that these are businesses who have not kept pace with consumer demands, consumer preferences. And we will always see that. It’s possible that we have been through the lion share of that, at least at this current go round, but we’re also seeing something else.
Mitchell Sabshon:
We are seeing retailers that are using chapter 11 as a strategy to do what they otherwise might do outside of, or want to do outside of a bankruptcy. And that is once you file chapter 11, you can close stores and limit your lease obligations. You have great negotiating power with your landlords to restructure leases. They might be 10 year leases, and now you can go back and say, “If you don’t restructure with me, I’ll reject the lease.” And we’re seeing a lot of that going on. And I believe we will see more of that now and in the period following the pandemic, and closing of non-essential businesses as a strategy.
Mitchell Sabshon:
I think long-term, retail is changing, shopping online, I think so many people who have spent time at home have used online shopping, whether it’s Amazon or Walmart or other vendors. I think we’ll see a growth in that, and I think retailers are going to need to change how they do business for more online, smaller square footage, for much more what I would call time spent in the store. How do you get people to spend more time in the store? A woman may go into a store for a lipstick and spend instead 45 minutes in the store looking at other merchandise. Someone might go into a sporting goods store looking for one small purchase and spend more time. Retailers have to be more creative about creating what I call “dwell” time in the store to keep up with the online competition.
Ryan Morfin:
Well, that’s a fascinating comment you made about retailers, perhaps repositioning their business for the future and getting rid of past mistakes, because for our viewers, when you go through a bankruptcy, you only have to pay, I think, what is it, one year of a lease and you can accept or reject different leases through the restructuring.
Mitchell Sabshon:
Yeah, that is my understanding. And so you have a 10 year lease and your maximum liability and bankruptcy, all deference to the bankruptcy and restructuring lawyers out there, I believe that the only obligation under the bankruptcy code is one year.
Ryan Morfin:
So it’s a way to get out of some mistakes that you made, and the locations of your properties of your stores. And so I could see a lot of these retailers cherry picking the future locations.
Mitchell Sabshon:
It’s even more strategically used than just that, because you talk about mistakes. Well, I have heard of scenarios, first hand, where a retailer has declared chapter 11. They do have some stores that are losing money and would like to get out from underneath the lease obligation. But they also have stores that are doing quite well and they, nonetheless, will go to their landlord and say, “I know my rent is $8 a square foot for the next 10 years, but I’m proposing I pay only $4 a square foot instead.” And the landlord knows that the store is doing well, but the tenant says, “And if you don’t agree to the reduction in rent, I’m going to close the store. I’m going to put it on the closing list.” And the landlord has to play chicken with that tenant. Is the tenant in bankruptcy really going to close that store or not? And so even stores that are not mistakes are on the block for reductions of rent. And that’s something that we will face more of certainly in the next 12 months.
Ryan Morfin:
Yeah, no, that’s a very interesting game theory application in the retail space. What about Amazon? What are your thoughts about Amazon? I mean, have they damaged and disrupted the industry so much that it will be hard for it to recover? Or do you think the retail entrepreneur is going to come up with a competitive model here?
Mitchell Sabshon:
I do think, as I said earlier, I think retailers need to figure out a way to truly address consumer preferences. Why would a consumer want to get in the car and go to a store? What is it about that experience? As opposed to going online, findingmerchandise and clicking on it, maybe even sometimes one click and have it on your doorstep, certainly 48 hours later, sometimes 24 hours later. Retailers need to figure out how to attract people to the store, because it’s a positive experience. I do believe that that is doable, but they have to be creative in finding out, determining how to do that for each different type of retailer. I think Amazon poses a huge threat to the industry so long as it’s the fair haired child of the stock market, because Amazon, while certain of its businesses, it’s cloud based business may make money, as long as investors are prepared to continue to provide capital to the company, what is it, stock at $3,200 a share at this point?
Mitchell Sabshon:
It was at $700 before the pandemic or something like that. They can afford to lose money on their retail businesses, whereas any other business that had a true positive cost of capital would pay dearly and could not absorb that for an infinite period of time. And so the only way that Amazon actually its impact on retailing can truly be materially reduced is if the stock market does not support it to the same extent. And that could very well be a result of any kind of congressional action about dealing with an Amazon monopoly, or anti-competitive type actions it may be accused of. And maybe if that were to happen, that would be a motivation for the stock market not to basically provide free capital to the company.
Ryan Morfin:
Yeah, I’m looking at a graph here from Goldman Sachs. From 2013 to 2017, the stock market went up about 27%, but the tech stocks went up about 230%. And then if you look at the V-shaped [inaudible 00:34:53] of S&P 500, the fangs are up about 35%, and the remaining 495 names are down 5%. So, it’s fascinating to me that these guys can keep posting losses and not paying taxes and still just grab all this market share and top line revenue and it’d be okay. So I think antitrust; tech antitrust conversation, irrespective of who wins in November, is going to accelerate next year. So I think it’s going to be a very interesting trend to watch.
Mitchell Sabshon:
Yeah, I actually believe that, I am concerned about that because as a counter argument, consumers are very simple. We’re all very simple. We vote with our feet. We vote with our pocketbook. And if any manufacturer or any provider of services provides a product or services that we think makes sense, we’re going to be attracted to that. And so those companies, Apple and Facebook and Amazon and Google, they have created products and maybe it’s easy for them to create products now because of the cost of capital and because of their market shares, we can talk about all of that, but the bottom line is consumers have made them who they are because those companies have successfully provided consumers what they are looking for.
Ryan Morfin:
Well, and if they do have the antitrust successful conversations in D.C, then we should probably expect inflation to start to spike up because, like you said, consumers have been the beneficiary of this price war, if you will, between Amazon and the brick-and-mortar folks.
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, that depends on whether consumers take chips off the table, or they keep riding it, riding it, riding it. There’s an old adage, you can’t put your chips on the same number for 20 years in a row and expect to win every time, and eventually it’s going to come up a different number or it’s going to come up black when you’re on red. And so if financial advisors, your audience, are disciplined themselves, at some point they will tell their clients, “Take your winnings. Be happy and be safe.”
Ryan Morfin:
Well, what are some silver linings? What is your view on the economy? Is the recession just starting? Do you think the V-shaped [inaudible 00:37:15] continues to grow from here? What are some silver linings in the economy today?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, I do think, maybe I’ll step back and take a further view without the specifics of the economy, but I still look around the world and I look at the way capitalism is executed here in the United States, and I still believe that our economy and our culture rewards innovation, creativity. People can argue that culturally, we are not a level playing field and that’s a discussion for another day, but there is clearly opportunity in this country that doesn’t exist anywhere else. And so I am a buyer of the U.S. economic growth. And even when we have dips, I have faith, I have almost certainty that this economy comes back over time, no matter what.
Ryan Morfin:
Do you think that the trade war between the U.S. and China is going to move supply chains back to the U.S.?
Mitchell Sabshon:
No, I don’t. I think that, again, common sense will drive both the U.S. and China for their own mutual benefit. Yes, I think that corporate espionage and copying the various products needs to be implemented in an international way. But generally, China wants its economy to continue to grow. We want our economy to continue to grow. I think trade wars and turf wars both are not in anybody’s best interest.
Ryan Morfin:
And you’re going into like a human element about leadership through this environment. How have you and your leadership team gone through this change and working environment? From a business development standpoint to a communication standpoint, what are things you guys are doing differently to keep in communications with your clients?
Mitchell Sabshon:
We have actually been extremely proactive. So from internally our own management, our offices are formally closed. We have approximately, I think 750 people in our home office, and then another few hundred people around the country onsite at properties. The headquarters is technically closed, but we have implemented work remotely strategies. We have our weekly meetings and board meetings all by video camera. Zoom has very much become a part of our culture at this point. And so we have found almost seamlessly the ability to work remotely, even with that large number of employees, with respect to our partners on the investment side. So our broker dealers, our registered investment advisors, our financial advisors. We continue almost daily a series of communications about property performance.
Mitchell Sabshon:
We have implemented something we call Inland Academy to provide educational materials to get our partners even more familiar with new products, new strategies, to discuss tax issues and investment concepts. And we are also in constant contact with our investors, sending out weekly reports on every single property in our portfolio. Our portfolio is well over $10 billion, and we communicate very robustly. We also schedule multiple webcasts during the week to inform our investors, real time, the actual Inland executives who are responsible for each investment, discussing the status of the investment. I think that we have been creative and very successful quite candidly, Ryan, in a way that, if you would’ve asked me in January or February, I never could have imagined, and yet I am so pleased with what we’ve done and I hope our partners and our investors feel the same way.
Ryan Morfin:
Absolutely. And one final question for you. Are you reading anything this Summer? Or are there any podcasts or newsletters that you’ve been going to, to try to help shape your view on this recovery?
Mitchell Sabshon:
Well, I have found far more time to read over the past several months since March than in a long time. My commute to our office, when the office is open, is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. I don’t have that commute problem. So now I have an hour and a half to two hours every day of additional time. I’m not reading so much related to COVID-19. I do watch all of the news channels; 24 hour news channels. But I’ve read a couple of interesting books. I’ve read, Fascism by Madeleine Albright, Scalia Speaks, written by Judge Scalia himself. I’ve read Katharine Graham’s personal history, and it escapes me now, but I don’t have a name, but I’m watching, I’m listening, to a podcast on WeWork. It’s rise and it’s fall, and makes for fascinating listening as well.
Ryan Morfin:
Well, Mitchell, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for your leadership in the industry. And we’ll keep an eye out on the rhetoric coming out of DC in election season for section 1031. Thanks for your insights.
Mitchell Sabshon:
Ryan, it’s been my pleasure. Thank you for having me and please be safe and well.
Ryan Morfin:
You too. Thank you very much. Thank you for watching Non-Beta Alpha. And before we go, please remember to subscribe, like and join us on Apple Podcasts, YouTube or Spotify. This is Non-Beta Alpha, and now you know.

Share This Episode

Subscribe To Our Podcast!

COPYRIGHT 2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO BUY OR SELL ANY SECURITY; INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL INVESTORS. AN INVESTMENT IN ANY SECURITY MAY INVOLVE RISK AND THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF YOUR INITIAL INVESTMENT. INVESTORS SHOULD REVIEW ALL “RISK FACTORS” BEFORE INVESTING. INVESTORS SHOULD PERFORM THEIR OWN DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE CONSIDERING ANY INVESTMENT. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, INSURANCE AND ANNUITY PRODUCTS ARE NOT FDIC INSURED/NOT BANK GUARANTEED/NOT INSURED BY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY/MAY LOSE VALUE. SECURITIES OFFERED THROUGH CABOT LODGE SECURITIES, LLC [CLS] MEMBER FINRA / SIPC 200 VESEY STREET, 24TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10281, 888.992.2268.

Recommended For You

The effects of COVID- 19 on Universities, student housing, and the quality of learning for students W/ Brian Nelson President & Founder of NB Private Capital

The effects of COVID- 19 on Universities, student housing, and the quality of learning for students W/ Brian Nelson President & Founder of NB Private Capital

    The effects of COVID- 19 on Universities, student housing, and the quality of learning for students W/ Brian Nelson President & Founder of NB Private Capital Share This Episode Recommended For YouWant to join our...

read more

Want to join our show?

Would you like to be a guest on the Non-Beta Alpha Podcast? Please click below and let us know that you are interested in being a guest on the podcast and we will get back to you shortly.

Skip to content