Ryan Cotton | Bain Capital’s Partner and Head of Real Estate

Alignment is everything, and I want partners who want to make money when my limited partners make money. Period. It means I want people who want to bet on themselves, who want to make most of their capital from profit sharing, you know, from some promoted interest, some carry interest structure, something like that, that is highly aligned with the capital that sits behind them. So not deal-by-deal type promotes, not single execution stuff, but let's cross all of our activity in the strategy, and if the strategy makes money, we're all going to make money, and it's not, we won't. I definitely don't want partners who want to get rich on fees, or salary, or anything like that. It's upside, and it's value-creation. Hello, and thanks for tuning in to Real Estate Capital. I'm your host, Nancy Lushin of Park Medicine Partners. Capital is a lifeblood of the real estate industry, but the decisions on where and how it's allocated are driven by people and personalities. Who are they? What motivates them? What can we learn from their experiences? On this show, we introduce you to some of the real estate industry's most influential thought leaders and decision makers, and we talk about what is important to them, how they make critical decisions, who has influenced them, and a lot more. Today's guest is Ryan Cotton, partner and head of real estate at Bayne Capital, one of the world's largest private investment firms, with over 200 billion in AUM and 24 offices worldwide. Bayne launched its real estate business in 2018, their portfolio includes life sciences, data centers, industrial retail, and several other niche sectors. Ryan also leads Bayne Capital's global consumer business, and has more than two decades of experience building businesses, platforms, and investment strategies across industries. Ryan is an unconventional background for someone in the real estate business. He studied philosophy at Princeton, and then spent a year working in baseball operations for the Boston Red Sox, before joining Bayne as a consultant. In 2003, Ryan joined Bayne Capital's Consumer and Retail Investments team, where he led major investments in brands like Canada Goose and Varsity Brands. And after nearly two decades in Bayne's private equity group, Ryan was tapped to lead Bayne's real estate team, making him one of the rare leaders to cross over from the consumer private equity, into private real estate, two decades on, into his investment career. Ryan brings an outsider's perspective on how the real estate industry works, where it breaks down, and where the real opportunities lie. In our conversation, we discussed how intellectual curiosity and pattern recognition have shaped his investment philosophy. We also explore how those ideas have impacted Bayne Capital's real estate strategy, and the evolving role of real estate in institutional portfolios, the power of the magic investing in today's market, and how Bruce Springsteen has impacted his investment philosophy. So, Ryan, I had the pleasure of hearing you speak for the first time at the Priya conference in Boston this year, and I thought that was awesome. It was great. And I made copious notes to myself after you were talking and promptly lost them. So, I have no idea what you said that was so interesting that I really had to write, talk about. So, I'm sure we'll find, we'll find important topics here. Well, thank you for being there. I'm sure we'll touch on some of that ground, and happy to hopefully refresh some of those thoughts. It's really a pleasure to be with you and appreciate you making the time to chat. Well, I'd love to share with our listeners a little bit of your origin story, because it's not the classic real estate investor origin story. Tell us a little bit about what you studied in school and your first jobs before you came to Bane. Yeah, sure. As you say, I'm not a traditional real estate investor, having come late to that in life, which certainly has some liabilities to come with it, but I hopefully also some assets. I started a different way, as you mentioned, at which Princeton is an undergrad who was a philosophy major, much to the screen of my parents who were very confused about what somebody could do with a philosophy degree in their life. Maybe they weren't confused. Maybe they knew exactly what you could or couldn't do. Philosophy professor was not what they hoped for me in life, but was the most obvious career path. But actually, it was the best thing I ever did for myself. I think it taught me how to be curious, how to ask questions, how to frame and structure arguments, how to think about weaknesses, in what you think, and look for data to buttress those thoughts. It was really just a discipline way to think. It was a great start to being an investor. Can I stop you about that? Because I'm so curious. One of our children was always asking these questions, and we'd look at each other and go, "Oh, that's a Julia question," because she would ask these questions that didn't really have an answer, that the answer was the next question. When you say that, by studying, I don't know, Kant and Kierkegaard, and whoever, when you think about the structure of learning how to think, double-click on that for me again. Yeah. Well, I'll confess to you that my childhood nickname, amongst my family members, which I think was a loving nickname, was Professor Questions, so your daughter and I had something in common. I asked a lot of annoying questions, too. I think that the homework a lot of those questions was sort of the why question, not just the facts, but it was really trying to understand, why does it work that way, and does it need to work that way? How did we get here? As I approached philosophy, I was not a great philosophy student. Let's be clear. None of my professors wanted me to become a philosophy professor. That was not what I took a shine to. I was probably less obsessed with the specific ethic of Kant, or the telos of somebody, not trying to nail their understanding of the world, but really trying to use that process of asking why questions, to build some sort of rigid discipline around getting underneath and not just accepting things at face value, but really trying to understand the broader why that sits behind them. I think the philosophers I gravitated toward in college were much more metaphysist people who thought about why the world is and why the way it is the way it is, and much less sort of the philosophy of science, philosophy of math, how do we know what language is, those sort of things, but I think ultimately we're a little more pedantic than the sort of why are we all here, a question that the tribute of philosophy in the first place? As you say, I do think it's just a discipline. I think it's a learned process of taking an assumption or taking a fact and then questioning the why behind that a lot. Yes, we all agree that X is good or Y is bad, but like, why is it bad? Why is it good? What gives it meaning? What is the standard against which we're judging? How do we derive that standard? How do we know that standard is right? Those are a series of Y questions that if you really just start to engage those with curiosity, I think you start to open up new and bigger puzzles for yourself. Ultimately, what I found in philosophy is they're not a lot of answers. They're just more questions, so a little bit like your daughter, the Y question leads to another Y question. Right. Another Y question. But I think that process of curiosity actually, and I've said this many times, is probably the best virtue you can have as an investor. Our job is not to traffic and conventional wisdom or just sort of say, well, everybody knows X. It's to ask Y, and it's to ask Y until we can't ask Y anymore. I train people that when you get to some fundamental insight through that interrogation and some belief that sets at the basis of your Y, well, then you know what you're really betting on, and you know what you can really deal with. This is a superior piece of real estate. Okay. Why? Well, it's in a better location. Why is it a better location? Because it's in the traffic pattern of the customer. Well, will that traffic pattern change? How durable is that traffic? You can start to keep asking Y and keep asking Y until you arrive at some fundamental bet you're ultimately making. Okay. Well, I want to dig further into how the philosopher became the deal maker. But before we get there, just so everybody gets a little bit more about your background. So after school, do you went to the next logical place to go? Yeah, obviously. I thought in college, I was going to run a baseball team. That's been a philosophy major. Like how do you train to be a general manager, a major league baseball? I guess you're a philosophy major. But I love baseball. And my whole childhood, that was my passion. And what I wanted to do when I grew up was run a major league baseball team. I was not a very good player. And so, you know, hitting my way or pitching my way to the major leagues was never really going to be an option for me. But I thought the academic side, the sort of managerial side of it would be pretty interesting. And so I pursued that pretty aggressively. It was very lucky while in college to land a job working for the Boston Red Sox and their baseball operations organization. Working for then general manager, Tandooket, and a whole bunch of very talented people in the scouting, player development and baseball operations teams, you know, really starting to think about how do you build a team? How do you construct a roster? How do you manage talent through an organization? How do you use data? And these were the early days of money, but how do you data and data science to evaluate what up to that point had been an inherently subjective discipline? You had guys who just looked at people and said, oh, that's a talent. You know, it's a cool, but what's the pattern? Back to the why questions again. Why do you know that person as a talent? What is the substance behind that argument? How do we get analytical rigor behind those those sort of embedded beliefs? And so I spent two years doing that with the Red Sox, which was amazing. It was, you know, fulfilling a child a dream and the stories I have about meeting my heroes and going to night hearing an all-star game and watching Pedro Martinez pitch the best editing in the history of baseball. You know, it was great. I had an incredible ride, but I also, you know, was on a bit of a journey of self discovery during that period and realized for a lot of reasons that, you know, that wasn't the career path for me. It's a very difficult job. It's a very sort of long hours hard work. I like your current job. Yeah, fair. I've always been a bit of a glutton, but there are more ways to succeed in my current job than in that one. There's only 30-something major league baseball teams, and so therefore only so 30-something jobs that ultimately you want to have. And there were thousands of people running for those jobs, and just the odds seemed really long, and the journey seemed really hard. And so I started to look around at what else I could do coming out of college and with a skill set that was really just baseball and was very fortunate to be hired by Bating Company, the management consulting firm, who I think was looking for intellectual curiosity. In many ways, that's one of the things they screened for in talent was, you know, people who like to ask why, and people who like to understand how businesses work, and be curious about those sort of things. And so, you know, I was fortunate that they saw some talent in me, even though it wasn't on my resume. I was more fortunate to have a hiring manager who was a big grocery baseball fan and liked baseball many and wanted to win his grocery baseball league. But the stars aligned and I got a job working for Bating Company as a management consultant, which was fantastic. And I think in many ways, the best first job somebody could have in business. It's like an accelerated training ground in the principles of business. And in the principles of strategy and how you ask why questions and you take data and you take insight to formulate a strategy and then, you know, define that strategy with clarity and try to lead organizations with clarity and purposes as a result. So amazing education sparked a fire in me, honestly, for business and for curiosity and business that to this day is not gone anywhere. But after a couple of years, I realized and maybe it was the baseball player in me that I wasn't loving being a consultant. I respected the profession quite a lot. But the words I used to the time where it sort of felt to me like I was tying every day, my client would win, my client would lose, but we would tie. Right, right, right. I know where you went. And, you know, going back to the days of having a win loss record and, you know, reflecting the morning after on what could we have done better and what are we do? Well, you know, I wanted to get back into the winning and losing and I wanted to feel like I was making bets and making decisions and driving change. Boy, are you in the winning and losing game now? Yeah, no kidding. Be careful what you wish for. Yeah, getting. But that's, you know, that's what we were after. And I'm really lucky to have found that by moving to being capital from Bain & Company to the private equity business where we were building your grand franchise at the time and helping partner with great companies to hopefully build winning businesses. And I had a lovely 20 year run of doing just that, partnering with some of the greatest founders and entrepreneurs in America to build winning platforms, winning businesses, winning brands. So you were on the private equity side of the business just to clarify, yes. Yeah, I was. I spent 20 years in our private equity business and ultimately led our global consumer business here at Bain Capital. So retail, restaurants, hospitality, brands, anything sort of. And then did you, did you get somebody angry that they put you on the real estate side? No, actually, I did sign up for this. I sort of created a space for myself. Maybe it's the curse of being intellectually curious, but when the global financial crisis happened at Bain Capital, the firm looked to me to sort of say, what should we make of this with respect to real estate? That is the precipitation of this crisis. Most of my partners at the time had lived through the RTC gaze and I think had made a mental note to themselves that if I see this again in my life, I should probably go buy some real estate. And so we saw the GFC and it came to me with a question of, should we go buy some real estate? Was this the moment to do that? Was Bain not in the real estate business before? We did not have a real estate business then. And you know, when interesting about Bain Capital, we're the largest private alternative asset manager in the world. We're not a public company. We have incentives only aligned behind driving results for our limited partners and our investors. What's the, AUM of the private? About 210 billion dollars today. Wow. Of AUM. Okay. Spread across everything from private equity to liquid credit to special situations, real estate, venture capital, an old bunch of specialty investment businesses. But we didn't have real estate in the GFC. And so some folks thought maybe this is the time to do that. You know, things seem cheap. Should we just start raising real estate capital and buying real estate? It came to me and asked me that question. And I took really a year to sort of think through what we being capital could or should do in real estate, really in 2010, 2011. And it came back with two conclusions for the firm, which may have been right or wrong, but they were the conclusions I drove. One of those was that if what you were looking to do was play sector beta, if it was a belief that just, hey, real estate is cheap and we should just go buy real estate today, that there were probably some more efficient ways to do that than building a part of being. You know, there were open-ended funds, there were reats on the public stock market, there were baskets of securities, you could go buy on a liquid basis to trade the beta, which I thought was a pretty interesting idea. Sure. But we didn't work down. And yeah, it did work out for those who did that. But you know, that was way less friction, way less cost, way less, you know, liquidity than building a part of being capital. But the second thing I said was that, you know, having spent a year of studying the real estate investment ecosystem and all the businesses that were out there and all the competitors that existed, I saw a bit of a white space that I thought being capital could succeed in that white space. And in particular, what I described it as is having two features. The first of those was being rigorously and ruthlessly thematic about how you approach real estate. You know, it is taking those why questions that I and we love to ask and applying them to the sectors and strategies of real estate. It's not enough to say like, well, everybody trades office buildings, so we should buy office buildings. Right. Well, why do you want to own an office building? Is that a good idea? Right. Well, that comparatively performed better or worse than an industrial asset or a market rate multi asset or a specialty asset. At being capital, we sort of have an access of the matrix that is verticals, that is, you know, sector-specific technology, industrials, healthcare, consumer, financial services, things like that. And in those verticals, we are thematic first. We really try to understand what's happening in that landscape, the changes the way we live, workshop, play, whatever it may be, and then devising investment strategies to capitalize on those evolutions. How do you position capital ahead of that change? How do you take advantage of those evolutions? So when you saw the white space in the business in the 2011 timeframe, it's probably true. I mean, when I think about thematic investing, it's blackstone that popularize the concept and, you know, logistics, living, and just really, that became part of everybody's parlance. When I look at what's happening in 2025 in the business, it's absolutely thematic investing across the board. And so is that what you saw though, blackstone really wasn't doing it yet? And so many groups now have kind of followed in your path, if you will. Well, it's a very plain thing. I would say at the time and still today, I have an extraordinary amount of respect for blackstone. They're very good at what they do. And I do believe they made some differential thematic calls along the way that produced differentially great results. And, you know, even in 2010, you could sense what they were doing. And it seemed like a better way to do it to us. And you know, I had a lot of respect as I said for them then as I do now. But we didn't find a lot of people doing that. And in fact, what we found was a lot of people who I sort of maybe uncharitably referred to as kind of deal junkies, people who just liked transacting for the sake of transacting. Oh, that's called the state business. Fair enough. Maybe the legacy real estate business, I think the world is changing. But, you know, I had this great fortune of interviewing a whole bunch of really thoughtful and successful real estate investors at the time. And, you know, I tell now the story that the number one question I asked all those people was sort of tell me an investment, you think was a great investment. And what I would hear in exchange was a litany of deal stories. You know, I had a buddy who was a broker, who knew this guy, who was stuck, and his lenders were closing in on him. And so I was able to swoop in and buy this thing at 72 cents on the dollar. And like, what a great investment. And I'd listen to their worst oriented. Well, thank you. That's great. Congratulations. But, you know, can I just ask one more question. Why did you want to own that asset? Why did you want to own a hotel in downtown Dallas? You know, and the answer was always like, were you not paying attention? I got a great deal. Like, you know, that was the why behind it. And, and you know, that that isn't a good why, honestly. I was probing for somebody who said, well, I understood the way the world was headed. And it needed more of these. And it didn't have them. You know, we could we could be having a political conversation right now. But I'm going to totally restrain myself from that. Well, I appreciate that. That's a dangerous territory. We're already in dangerous enough waters, just talking about real estate. But there was clearly a gap of that thematic sort of inside-based why-first kind of investing in real estate at the time. And I thought, you know, we can build a product that does that sort of pretter naturally. And the second thing I said at the time was that if you follow that thesis to its logical conclusion, the kinds of things that it leads you to invest in are by definition more emerging kinds of real estate. They are more operationally intensive kinds of real estate. They're more difficult assets to manage than commodity assets that can be just traded in sort of a deal-making barter system. If you buy an office building, there's lots of great brokers who are happy to lease that building for you. And if you don't like a car when you use fire, when you hire another one. But that's kind of the degree of operational value ad you have in that asset. But truly thematic real estate, things that we don't have enough of and need more of in the world, you know, are really about ultimately meeting a customer set of needs. In some ways parallel to the consumer business I ran for 10 years that it is about understanding your customer, understanding their needs and delivering the very best you can against that set of needs. And doing that, delivering against that every day, requires a level of operating capability and a level of operating intensity that's more than average. And, you know, because we came from a consulting firm, because we are very hands-on operators of businesses and builders of platforms, that again struck us as sort of highly aligned with our DNA that we could use our thematic expertise to select the right sectors. And then we could start approaching those sectors with this bias toward competitive advantage. What does it take to be the best at this? How do we win at this? And let's go use our skills in building businesses and platforms to go build a route to market, to go build an operating platform in that sector that is competitively advantaged. And so that sort of became the business plan for being capital real estate all of now 15 years ago. Your lift out of the Harvard team was very unusual. I mean, you don't often see a lift out like that. Yeah, a unique transaction where we took the direct real estate team of a large scale LP, in this case, Harvard Management Company, was a fantastic investor in their own right, but a team that had outgrown their endowment, you know, who delivered pretty exceptional performance for the endowment, who had a strategy that needed to be fed by continual growth of capital, but who were for a lot of understandable reasons in an endowment model, sort of constrained in the amount of available capital that they had. And so I think both sides recognized that was attention in their model that Harvard wanted to serve by that team, but that team needed to serve a deeper capital base. We were able to sort of construct a partnership with Harvard where we could lift that team out of their business, place it onto our platform, keep working for Harvard, but at the same time start working for other people and feeding that with liquidity, which we get in 2018. It took us a little while because it took a while to find talent that shared that why-based, curious, thematic approach the world. The team at Harvard led its time by Dan Cummings, who's got 45 years of experience in the real estate world. They had gone and built the product they couldn't buy. They were sophisticated LPs. They knew all the fund managers in the world, and they said we've got a lot of exposure to a lot of things through smart partners, but we can't curate a basket of thematic exposures with advantage in the kind of direct and controlled way we want to. And so they started building that program themselves. And when we met them and described who we wanted to be, and they described who they were, we realized on both sides kind of quickly we'd come to the same answer in very different churnings, but that alignment of thesis and that shared worldview of what it takes to succeed in real estate really made it a one plus one equals three opportunity where they could help us build scale quickly and we could help them grow capital. And so we brought them onto the platform and started building our big capital real estate product. So you came to real estate having all this experience as a private equity investor doing consumer brands. What surprised you about the way real estate investors think that was positive? What do real estate investors do well? Yeah, it's a really good question. And there's a lot of things I think real estate investors do incredibly well. I'll say the first that that I've had to spend a lot of time raising my game around is that I think real estate investors are by instinct and in often cases by training extraordinary macro investors. Real estate is a cyclical business. It's subjected to interest rate fluctuations, it's subjected to economic fluctuations. It's got pretty fundamental supply demand forces that play on it. But I think if you're going to be good at real estate and the people who are exceptional at real estate are first and foremost fantastic sort of macro economists. Not that we should go to each a class at Harvard on macro economics and not that anyone would read dissertation. When you say macro like knowing where interest rates are going, having the view of yeah, and I'd monitor it. Which I think it's less about having a deterministic point of view about where those things are going. But having a really finely tuned sense of the fan of the possible. Really appreciating the various factors that influence rates, GDP, those sort of things. And carrying with you an awareness of where we're at in each of those cycles and where we could be going in those cycles. Actually, distrust the person who shows up and says interest rates are going down and here's the call. They might not go down. And I think being able to probabilistically handicap that fan is what great investors do first and foremost. And I think in private equity where you've got a lot of levers within a specific company. We can introduce a new product. We can cut costs. We can reposition the business. A lot of those are sort of intrinsic to the business themselves. And therefore, the optionality is much more about this business and what I can do with it. But I think in real estate, there's just a fewer levers. The building is where it is. I can't move it. The physical properties are the physical properties. It's expensive to change those. I think you have to be much more thoughtful about these broader variables that influence investment outcomes, these macro variables. If you're going to position capital thoughtfully. And one of the things I've come to really respect about the best of my competitors in the business is that they are macro aware to a pretty heightened sets and to a pretty high degree. And therefore, making investment decisions portfolio decisions with that macro awareness front and foremost in their mind. The second thing I have a lot of respect for in real estate is despite the characterization we shared earlier, there's some exceptional deal makers and some exceptional sort of transaction experts in the world of real estate. People are creative in real estate. And they find a way to marry different kinds of capital. They find a way to finance a project that other people said no to. They find a way to make the deal happen with a tenacity that I really, really respect. And there's a large toolkit we can employ in that and the best use all of those tools, I think really, really effective way. And then a third I'd say is at the top and in the best real estate investors in the world, I think there is quite a lot of curiosity. And as I said, I think that's the most important thing you can have as an investor. But I think as I talked to a lot of the sophisticated capital allocators of the world, and I spend time with the competitors in mind that they're great at what they do, you do share people who are just fundamentally intellectually curious or trying to figure out why is this interesting? What's driving this? Is that real? Data centers today? What's really going on with data centers? Why? How do you-- You're not going to tell us in this podcast, right? We'll count it on you. I think you're going to find I don't have all the answers, but just more questions. I'm teasing you. I do think that curiosity to figure out the next thing to understand what's happening, that is very inherent in great real estate investing. And it's been fun to find other curious minds in the world of real estate and have those kind of conversations where we both admit we don't know the answer. But let's engage the problem. Let's learn from each other. So I've learned a ton in my entree into real estate from a lot of really talented people, and it's made me respect to the industry quite a bit, even if I come at it with a slightly different point of view. No, that's phenomenal. You know, when I think about real estate in the context of Portfolio, and going back to say post RTC and then again post the great financial crisis, real estate was viewed as an opportunistic return. I think we've all come to see in the last-- certainly in the last five years, but even the last 10-15 years that comparing real estate returns with private equity returns is the wrong comparison. So how have you and being come to think about the role of real estate in the Portfolio, and when you think about underwriting deals and what would make sense, how are you comparing that and rationalizing that relative to the other things your clients could be doing? Yeah, it's a really fair question. I think the last 15 years has been sort of a unique period of macroeconomic history, right? A 15-year mega-cycle of declining rates and steady, consistent GDP growth. It was sort of-- yeah. --for investing. It doesn't get more benign. Well, it stopped about four years ago, the last time. Yeah, yeah. 46 months ago, exactly. The music stopped. But for a long period there, it was pretty fantastic. Right. And I'd be careful to draw super long-term conclusions based just on the performance of the last 15 years. I think in an environment where you have benign rates, where you have steady growth, where you have a declining cost account. Right. By definition, the assets that have the most operating leverage and the most financial leverage will benefit the most. Risk equities, being the most levered extreme version of that, had the best performance through that. I think we've forgotten, in a lot of ways, the risk part of that business. And what goes up can come down. It hasn't in a while, but it can. And there is probably more inherent volatility in the underlying results of those operating businesses and capital structures than subconsciously, I think many of us may believe. So where do I position real estate in that? I'd say two things. One, it's a risk asset. You know, this isn't credit. You know, the returns need to be better than they are for fixed income type investing because there is volatility and there is the possibility of equity loss. But there is also some convexity to it. There is the ability to drive income growth. There is the ability to drive above GDP growth in your rents and therefore produce superior growth returns through that asset class. Probably less than the growth into the corporate spectrum, but still that ability. And so I think from a return perspective, targeting it somewhere between credit and private equity feels about right to me. So what do I mean? Sort of returns. I think for risk equities, for sure. There is definitely a pocket of real estate, the core world, the core plus world, the fully least, fully stabilized assets. If you buy at the right moment in the cycle and you think about, you know, cap rates thoughtfully, they produce good risk adjusted returns as well. But the business I'm in is surely further out the risk spectrum than that. And so I think for value add, opportunistic kind of real estate, those mid teens returns feel right. So the second thing that I encourage investors to think about is it is not strictly speaking correlated with equities. And I think having non correlated assets in your portfolio is a valuable thing to do. Even if you accept some slightly lower return for that correlation disconnect, you're still optimizing the portfolio outcome from a sharp ratio, a consistency of volatility perspective, which a lot of the investors I serve, you know, that has real value to them, you know, recognizing there is some perspiration and there is some non correlation. And then the last thing is, and, you know, we surely tested this hypothesis in the last four years, but I'll tell you what I think about it. I do think real estate is a pretty effective inflation hedge over the long run. Agile debate, right? Yeah, and it is an age old debate, but I'll give you a little bit of data that shares where I'm coming from on this because clearly the last three years, we've had some pretty significant inflation and real estate is down and equities are up. And so, you know, if it's an inflation hedge, where's the edge? I think the challenge is real estate is an inflation hedge on a lag and I think there are different moments in the cycle of real estate. Maybe unlevered real estate is an inflation hedge. The impact of, you know, the capital structure has been so significant. There has definitely been some overhang of that 15-year mega cycle of declining rates and benign credit markets and an approach to leverage that was probably a little cavalier or with large. But I'll share this and you mentioned our prior conversation. This was something we shared there that we've spent a lot of time going back and studying the 1970s as a model for how real estate behaves in rate environments and in inflationary environments that don't look like the last 15 years. You know, the 1970s, obviously, we had pretty runaway inflation in America. You had rate hikes of pretty substantial proportions. You know, it's a cartoonish version of what we're living through now. You know, I don't think we have quite that degree of stagnation. We surely don't have that degree of inflation. We surely don't have those interest rates. But in a relative sense, it was a paradigmatic shift from kind of relatively low rates to higher rates from low inflation to higher inflation. And so what happened? Well, the answer is a bifurcated answer. For the first four years of the decade from 1970 to 1974, real estate was the worst performing asset class in America. It had a much bigger value correction than equities because as rates started to go up, cap rates started to blow out and the market market, you know, momentary valuation of that stock of real estate was fairly painful. And I think that is what we've been living through for the last four years. You had a market to market, cap rate expansion, cost of capital expansion, leverage complexities that come with that. Right. Sorry. Can I be your new or defore second? 1970s. You didn't have nae grief. You didn't have green street. You didn't have the public markets. What index are you using for the measure of how real estate works? You can go back with the CPPI. The Fed produces some data around the value of real estate and the average value of a real estate transaction. And you can start to kind of look underneath this. We've spent quite a lot of time trying to construct our own data set using GDP components for real estate income, looking at trade data in the markets, trying to figure out, cap rates. There's no clean data set, as you say. But enough persistence enough analytics, you can sort of pull together a data set. Yeah. No, that's interesting, because I've never heard that statistic before. Yeah. So bad performance heading into the cycle. Makes sense. You know, same thing we're living now. Rates go out, cap rates go out, borrowing, cost goes out, asset values go down. And because you've got staggered rent rolls and waltz and things like that, I can't just go access the inflation that's driving that rate correction immediately. You know, I can't take rates up 20% in a year in an office building. It's just not a doable thing. And so it takes longer to get at that inflation than, you know, perhaps in a company you can just raise price overnight. But what you see from 1974 to 1982 is that real estate is second only to gold in performance and asset classes through that inflationary period. And by the way, I'd say this cycle, we've already seen the run up of gold. You know, hyper-liquid markets, hot money, moon trading, you know, gold has experienced the rot. And if anything, it's starting to sell off a little bit. But real estate, I think, is at that 1974-ish need year where we've absorbed the pain in the market and the valuation paradigm. But we haven't really been able to get at that inflation yet. There's still some development overhang. There's still some staggered rents. There's supply. Oh boy, is our audience going to love this? This is like a Christmas present. Well, I think it's real. Nancy, I could be wrong. I'm trying to be very humble about how we approached macro always. But I think there's a lot of logic behind that. So I'm going to push on this for a second if you don't mind. So when I think about the real estate business in the 1970s, it was almost exclusively big office buildings that commercially held real estate. Maybe there were a few regional malls around, you know, that it started, but you certainly didn't have multi-family. It wasn't considered an institutional asset class and you didn't have it. It was behind a worth that's a classroom. Right. And industrial was largely corporate value. And in Cadillac Fairview, yeah, there were a few invests, but mostly corporate owned. So when you look more broadly at what we consider institutional real estate today, is that calculus hold? How does that change the calculus in the comparison? Yeah. So I'm careful not to paint with a super broad brush. The part of being thematic is recognizing different sectors behave differently. And what I would tell you about commodity office sector is not what I would tell you about the senior housing sector. I think those are very different things. But if you go back to, as we've done a few times in this conversation, the why of it all, I think the why holds together in a logically coherent way that where are we at today? Well, you know, we've absorbed rate hikes. Cap rates have expanded to do so. Certainly, public valuations have expanded quite significantly. And if you look at the way public's trade today, those cap rates have reflected that interest rate moves in their value, you still had a bunch of supply coming online the last two or three years. You know, it's a bit of a hangover for money being free in 2021 that, you know, every development pencil, when my borrowing cost is like two. And so you had a lot of supply that got brought under the system in the last four years. That alone created a bit of a rate pressure in a lot of sectors, be it life sciences or multifamily in the sunbelt or wherever. You felt that supply overhang. But where are we today? Well, the economy is still pretty healthy, you know, we can debate where it goes from here, but the GDP keeps on taking. You've got effectively no new supply growth. I mean, construction starts on a two year comprehend like 82% to the United States. And so the forward pipeline of supply looks very different than the last three years. You've still got good fundamentals going on underneath that surface. Absorption of multifamily in the sunbelt has set records four quarters in a row for the number of absorbed units. And so the demand is still there. We think about seniors, which we referenced, the aging demography of America, the inability to continue to defer care. It's a very real and present demographic problem that's driving demand in that sector. But the supply response is not quite there. And most new supply doesn't really pencil right now. Rates are below construction feasible rents, you know, with higher borrowing costs, higher development cost, higher capitalized development cost. It takes a lot more what you have to believe to make that development work. And so there's a bit of a laggard in the supply response. And we go back to real estate in the 1970s. And yes, it was primarily office buildings. But how many office buildings got built in the 1970s? You know, not many. That big development of real estate office boom was in the mid 1980s when money got free again. And so you had this sort of benign period of a very limited supply, but underlying demand growth that persisted. And so from 74 to 82 income growth in real estate was pretty significant. And you know, you didn't need a revaluation of the assets. You didn't need cap rate compression to drive growth. You just took income growth. And I think we're starting to see that. You know, we referenced seniors. I did the consensus expectation for 26 in a high growth in seniors is now somewhere between 7 and 10 percent. Yeah. Yeah. That's an enormous number of context of leverage real estate. Yeah. You know, I think multifamily rents next year will be up more than 2 to 3 percent when most markets. And so to me, that creates the opportunity for real growth. The ability to go access those income streams at today's reset pricing levels. But then, you know, enjoy a period of benign supply in decent fundamentals where you can push in a Y, you know, that's pretty darn good investing. And so I do think that inflation hedge is about to kick in. And I think you're about to see in a Y growth that's well above average. And, you know, that's sort of the hope and the good news for the industry is that as long as the economy stays healthy, we can grow our way out of this and recover a lot of value and create a lot of value in years to come. Is there any real estate that does well even if the economy starts to, you know, that we go into a recession? Honestly, I haven't found it. I don't think anyone's immune is the problem. Yeah. You know, there's theory about why. And, you know, multifamily in theory should be okay, because we all have to have a place to live. But people trade down, you know, that's a very real phenomenon. I think everybody feels it. If anything, I think it's market psychology. Like, fundamentally, what's something's worth is what people think it's worth when the economy takes a turn. Fear can win out over greed and everybody can over correct even if the fundamental stay okay. So the glaring exception to what you're talking about right now within the real estate sector is data centers. Yes. Because they are being built, you know, faster than we can imagine. And it's, it's easy to understand the need for them, but it's hard to understand the long-term utility and what the capital cost will be to maintain them and who's going to buy them in the future. And the dollars are just so large. So how are you investing in the world's most important trends right now? I'd say data centers, by far, the most interesting question in real estate today, how to sector, most activity, and sort of least amount of known information. You know, we've not lived this cycle before. We've not seen these assets for 30 years. And so there's just a lot of questions about them. I've got a few thoughts on data centers. I'd say first, the underlying thematic is pretty obvious and pretty irrefutable, like technology is eating the world. And AI is exceptionally powerful and it is coming and it will change nearly everything. And with that, we'll doubtlessly come the demand for more computational power, more processing power, more storage. I just have to stop you for one second because the minute you say it that way, I know you're making an analogy to software is eating the world. And we all know what's happening to software. So what could be wrong with that statement? That's pretty much the humility, I'd say, that sits behind this is, you know, these things change faster than we can imagine. And today's certainty is tomorrow's like, forgotten wisdom. AI is changing the way software works. And so, you know, am I certain that nothing in my lifetime will change the way AI works? Of course, I'm not certain about that. And I think you have to embrace this with that on a certain day. But that thematic is pretty real. You know, the data center demand, I think, is pretty real. I think the challenge is that on the journey to manifest destiny in the way toward inevitable technological evolution, market cycles and the price of risk and income can dislocate from that underlying driver in pretty material ways. I've taken using an analogy that was exceptionally dated and I surely didn't live through it. But I think the analog to data centers and AI in particular is sort of the railroad revolution of the late 19th century in the United States. You know, it was this technology that changed everything. It changed the shape of the world. It changed geopolitics. It changed the distance of the world. It changed every industry in America. It was a fundamental unlock of technology that unlocked productivity, the likes of which we had never imagined before. And for 25 years, there was a capital cycle of investing in railroads and the technology of railroads that was unstoppable. It was enormous. But in those 25 years, you also had two massive financial panics and you had huge stock market crashes because speculation and development can be different things. And you know, that's what I try to take as humility into this conversation is recognizing that how we price an asset and whether we need that asset may not always be perfectly correlated. So are you buying data centers now? Are you building them? We are invested in data centers in Asia and in Europe. Markets that I think have some very different supply barriers than the United States have a different demand profile as well. But really have some supply barriers around regulation, borders, energy restrictions, those sort of things that just make it a less frothy and harder to access market. I think you can invest with a little bit more conviction in the long term supply demand picture. Probably with a little bit of a capri premium that gives you a little bit more margin of safety. We are also investing heavily in the United States in a bank of powered land, securing the energy infrastructure that powers data centers. If we're not taking the development risk downstream, why do I say that? Because look, I don't know where the mispricings in the ecosystem are. I'm sure there are some. If this is the first technology cycle in which no one loses a dollar, it'll be the first technology cycle in which no one loses a dollar, you know, that just hasn't happened. Sure. But I think there are probably some really good bets out there that we're not making. And I think there's some really risky bets that we're not making. But minor line challenge is two-full. One is I think the capex cycle that you're seeing in data centers today is almost by definition unsustainable. You know, we are spending as much on data centers as we are on all of the real estate put together right now. We're spending more money to house computers than humans. That's a pretty odd thought. You know, we're doing that because there is an existential war amongst hyperscalers to see it's going to be the foundational LLN model of the future. And if you're Google, if you're Meta, if you're Microsoft, if you're OpenAI, like you have to pay to play, and you have to play to win. And so they are spending 60 to 75% of their free cash flow right now on capex for AI. Right. Because they're in this arms race of epic proportions. Right. But they're not all going to win that arms race. I don't think we need seven foundational LLN models in the future. You know, we have like one search engine today. We have one email server. People tend to win new technology wars. And I think as it becomes apparent to participants that they are not the winner, you'll see them necessarily start to take their foot off the gas, start to harvest that free cash flow in a different way and reprioritize their corporate spending. And that's going to create an air pocket in the development boom that we're seeing today. I think that's almost inevitable. The question is, what happens when that happens? You know, the leases all stay in place. Does the demand stay there? Does the cap rates stay there? Not entirely sure. Which is sort of my second question as I approach the sector of sort of what is data center income worth? And I don't know the answer to that, but I can think about it in a comparative way. The prevailing wisdom today is that a fully leased credit tenant data center, you know, with a hyper scaler is worth like a six cap. And why is it worth a six cap? Well, it's got a premium to multi-family, but a discount to retail. Why does it sit in that space of the market? And I think the people who are bulls would point you to sticky credit tendency, the high quality of income, the irreplaceable nature of the asset. That'll make sense to me. But I think the bears would point you to, you know, ongoing capital drag at the asset. How much need to reinvest in this asset when the leases up to renew the cooling technology, to recondition the power to upgrade the infrastructure? And I don't know the answer to that, but I know that gen one data centers, the kind of data centers that were built 15 years ago for Yahoo and AOL, you know, if you want to modernize one of those, it costs about half the amount of the data center to redo it. Right. You know, 50% capital drag every color ten or ten years. I'm curious why the market is so focused just on hyper scales, whereas there's been a fair amount of research come out about carrier hotels and, you know, the networks that are closer to the consumer that are multi-tenant and they're obviously are far less costly and take far less power. I mean, it seems like, that just seems like such a safer bet to me. Yeah, I think the obvious answer is people are flocking to the credit quality, the underlying tendency. And if I've got a 15 year lease from a hyper scaler, I have to like, professionally have a bond against that hyper scaler. And, you know, we know what their credit price is for in the market. And so I can sell on this lease, I can sell on this income stream at some premium to their credit in the market. Yeah, but if you have the right grocery anchored retail, you know, it's property that's, you know, with all high-end houses built around it. And they're going to shop there because it's in proximity. You can just find the retailers to come in there. Well, amen. And I surely love that sector of real estate quite a lot in that sector for all those reasons. But I also think just discerning the credit quality of tenants in that hoteling model today, you know, when they're largely startup type businesses, when they're largely venture back type businesses, you know, some of which may be the Googles of tomorrow and some of which may be gone tomorrow. I'm talking about the trading companies, the Verizon's, the network providers, too. And I think that's pretty good business if you can do it and you can do it with Edge. I just think it's hard. I think finding the sites is hard, securing the power is hard. Building the technological infrastructure in an urban environment is hard. Super power to the people who can do that really well. I have a lot of respect for that. Back to the other thing we said was sort of foundational is being obsessed with competitive advantage. I'm not the dust in the world of doing that. And so we should leave it to the people who are. And there's plenty of places where we can go build competitive Edge that's a little less volatile and a little less sort of tip of the spirit. So when you talk, think about competitive advantage for what you're doing is finding the right partner or building the right platform a key part of that. And how do you decide when to build a platform versus, you know, do a joint venture with an existing operating partner? And how do you think about the longevity of those relationships? Yeah, I think again, it's all rooted in the thematic. They ask why until you can't ask why anymore. If we really get our heads behind what's changing, why it's changing, how likely it is to keep changing. Well, then two things I think become apparent. One is what it takes to win with those changes. You know, one of the things I say is sort of the process of asking why is a little bit like shrinking the buy box to its tightest possible expression. I love when you talked about grocery and could retail. You inherently shrunk the buy box to sort of high network neighborhoods of infill locations with credit quality tenants. Like you described a buy box for me. It's fairly precise that by the way happens to be our buy box in grocery. So I think it's a point. I didn't know that, but good for you. Points to you. But I think when you can express it that tightly, well, then you can understand what you need to win. Who are the tenants that need to go into those ecosystems? Because I need relationships with those tenants. What's the activation required for that center? Because it's not just a dumb center. It's one that I've got to bring life to and I've got to energize and I've got to bring events to it. And you can start to describe with that tight definition what competitive edge it looks like in that ecosystem. If we do the hoteling for trading firms in New York City data centers, well, I know what customers I need relationships with. I know what kind of technology I've got to provide those customers. I can start to describe the things I'm going to need to be really good at to be really good at that kind of. And then will you find one partner and just try to roll out the program with them? Yeah. And so I think once we can describe that, you know, we want to control that access of competitive edge. You know, I want to really work to build it refine it and perfect it. And I then don't want that competitive edge serving other people's capital. You know, that sort of is the secret sauce of building platforms and, you know, platforms have different shapes, different sizes, different scales, different time horizons based on the thematic. But, you know, whether you are a small joint venture partner for us or a fund-owned operating platform, we still want a partner in the same way. You know, we want to come in and think creatively about how we make competitive edge happen together. You know, we want to make one and one equal three. And so take those main capital business building skills that, you know, 42 years in the making and apply them within two-hour partners. You know, how do you build the right talent? Do you have the right organizational structure? We have the right systems and processes and data to make good decisions together. And let's build that together so that we can refine that competitive edge in the strategy. So let's talk about that because you talked a little bit about how you hire, like when you get hired and when you hire people or hire this team, how do you incent them? I mean, we know real estate people tend to be inherently entrepreneurial and deal-driven and incentive-driven. So does it make sense to have them be on the payroll of Bain and get some kind of incentive? Or do you want them to be outside and just fully aligned so that they are captive too? How do you think about it? Well, you know, there's a lot of nuance to the answer to that question, but I'll give you the simplest version of it, which is alignment is everything. And I want partners who want to make money when my limited partners make money. Period. Right. It means I want people who want to bet on themselves, who want to make most of their capital from profit sharing, you know, from some promoted interest, some carried interest structure, something like that, that is highly aligned with the capital that sits behind them. So not deal-by-deal type promotes, not single execution stuff, but let's cross all of our activity in the strategy and if the strategy makes money, we're all going to make money and it's not, we won't. I definitely don't want partners who want to get rich on fees or salary or anything like that. It's upside and it's value creation. Having done this for a while, there's really impressive overlap between the entrepreneurial, competitively-minded, hard-driving, thoughtful investment partner that you want, and somebody who values the incentives that we value. And, you know, the partner shows up and says, look, I just want to do deals. And like, if your investment committee stops me, that's a problem. Well, that's not a very aligned partner, you know, that's, it'd be a mate how many of those exist, but that's not a very aligned partner. So you talked about being the largest alternative manager in the world, your funds are now multiple billions of dollars. Or just private alternative. Or just private, sorry, sorry, caveat accepted. But your funds are large and what we're seeing now and that not necessarily not specific to being at all, but we're seeing even in very large managers that in this last 15 years where you've had disappointing returns largely as a result of, you know, the spike in interest rates and, you know, people not being able to sell or refinance at the kind of pricing they had anticipated. So the people who were counting on their promotes are at a promote. There is no promote. How do you maintain an incentive team when the market, the cyclical market throws you a curveball like that? Yeah, it's a great question. Well, first, I think it's an advantage to not be the hundred pound incumbent at the moment because, you know, we're growing, we're attracting capital, we've got a positive vision for what we're trying to do that we can share with others. And I think people are excited about that and want to be a part of that, which gives me some unique advantage to cut through this market. I think the second answer is it's really about where you invest in what you are. And, you know, if you go back to that thematic Y-base style of investing, you know, we don't own office buildings. We don't own malls. The spaces where the world has gotten the most difficult are just not spaces we play in by design because we could never come up with a good Y reason to be in those spaces. And instead, I think the kinds of spaces that we've made ourselves experts at and be that life sciences or senior housing or self storage or hyper-infill industrial or whatever it may be, those are sectors that have enduring thematic tailwinds to them. And so, you know, you can write out a valuation cycle. You can sort of say, well, you know, to paraphrase Warren Buffett, Mr. Markets having a bad day of schizophrenia. So we're just going to kick him out of our office today and keep building our business. And I think that belief that the long-term forces at work are tailwinds for you and that demand will continue and you will be able to continue to create value through a cycle. I think that's fundamental to sort of selecting the right sectors and selecting the right assets. And if you get that part right, I think there's a lot more durability to what you're doing than just trading the beta cycle of value regions. Sure. How is this growing scale impacting your investment strategy? Yeah. One of the things by design, I think, is different about our product is that we have a heavy exposure to alternative real estate. If you're not buying office buildings and malls, you know, you got to buy something. It's not a four-foot group kind of item. And so, that's also where thematics lead you. What do we need more of and don't have enough of? It's emerging alternative niche. You're more complicated product, by and large. And so, you know, what I think we've been successful in doing is building a nimble and dynamic platform that's got enough depth and enough scale to look across tons of alternative segments of real estate, to be curious about all those segments, to figure out which haven't during tailwinds, what competitive advantage looks like, and then be thoughtful and dynamic capital allocators into those segments. And so, as our funds have grown, the diversification of those sectors have grown as well. But I think one of the biggest lessons I've learned is how critical it is to be dynamic in those sectors. You know, I hear investors tell me quite often, "Well, we like student housing right now." And so, we're looking for a partner we can go allocate to forced student housing. And, you know, I think inherently one of the challenges of that model is that is sometimes a good idea and sometimes not a good idea. And the student housing market is volatile. And, you know, you're living it right now with immigration changes and foreign student changes and, you know, a whole bunch of other volatility around demand there, that while it was a great idea two years ago, it may not be a great idea right now. But 12 months from now, if you have a value correction with bad demand, it might be a great idea. And, you know, that need to stay dynamic in nimble and switch it on, switch it off, stay engaged in the market, but don't trade every day in the market. You know, that's kind of crucial to playing these alternative sectors. And, you know, back to your data center question, I think the market is just all on on data centers right now. And, you know, I don't know that that's always the right answer. And, I think part of what we get paid by our investors to do is be experts in each one of those asset classes and exercise judgment on their behalf around when you turn it on and when you turn it off and what's a good attachment and good detachment point to that market, at a speed and a dynamism that, you know, most institutions just aren't set up to achieve. Right. So at year end 2025, what are you leaning most at what sectors are you leaning most heavily into? Yeah. So we're careful across the board. I would say it's clearly a market that is still dislocated. 46 months under the cycle transaction volumes down 70% from its peaks. I think the bit as spread is incredibly wide in the marketplace today. And so all these things are hurting my heart. Please don't. But they're sadly true. I will work a lot of all of them, but they are sadly true. And so, you know, any trade, you've got to be a little bit suspicious of because nobody wants to sell at the market clearing price today and everybody wants to buy it, you know, depressed values. And so, you know, why am I so lucky is a pretty important question when you're doing yields today. But what do we love? Well, we like grocery anchor retail a lot. You know, you mentioned that one. I'll pick on that one for a second. The fundamentals are incredible. You've got basically notes supply growth. You've got 97% occupancy across the asset class. You've had consistent and steady rent growth. And I think it's gone through a technological revolution where you've retenined at all of those centers and gotten rid of the stationary store and the tax prep guy and replaced them with a laser skin care spa and a little lemon store that have much brighter prospects. And so, higher quality tendency, higher quality income. And I can access that income at a premium cap rate relative to other kinds of income in the market. If the market rate multi-trade is going off at a four or five cap, well, grocery anchor retails at like a 5.5.6. And so, I think I'm getting better income at a better price there. Continued to love hyper-infill industrial assets. So, not chasing the Amazon logistics e-commerce boom that, you know, a lot of folks chased, but really going into supply constrained/supply shrinking markets for hyper-infill assets and serving a highly diversified tendency of service providers. Everywhere from the air conditioning repair guy to the robotics laboratory of MIT, you know, these people need infill industrial space to make their businesses work. Are these small bay deals? Is that okay? Small bay, small coverage, hyper-infill assets in the ring road of some very specific cities like Miami were Boston, where we're actually shrinking the supply of this over time. So, we redevelop it for mixed use or multi-family or things like that. And so, you've got real scarcity of asset and kind of a diversified and steady growth of demand, not high growth, but steady growth. And that's a really repeatable formula for in a wide growth in the assets. And so, we like those quite a lot. We surely like some more esoteric sectors. Seniors we mentioned, I think, is an amazing space, although valuations are pretty peaky right now. Yes. You know, people are paying up for that growth, but the thematic makes sense, the why makes sense. We like a few very off-the-run kinds of real estate at the moment. Marina's been one of them self-storage for boats on the water. You know, it's not been a real estate asset class historically. I think it's rapidly becoming one, because people realize it is just storage on the water. It is supply-constrained and some pretty fundamental ways. I remember when in Boston, the Winthrop family bought the Marina in Nantucket. It was like, that was a long time ago. They did very well. And that was a pretty darn good buy. Yes. I promise you, Rachel. Just fine with that. Yeah. So, Marina's we like a lot. I think along that line, we just bought a platform portfolio of high-end golf courses, membership golf courses, that are a little bit steady recurring membership revenue, and surely misprice relative to real estate income in a pretty significant way. So, attractive yields and good growth profile in that asset. And we like luxury boutique hospitality. So, going to leisure markets for the wealthy and buying up Egypt hotel stock there and revitalizing it, that's proven to be a repetitive value creation. All very operationally intensive, which I guess giving your background doesn't scare you as much as it scares some others. I think it's good that it scares others, right? Who's had the greatest influence on you in your life? Well, I'll give you an odd answer. First of all, I've been incredibly lucky to just have exceptional mentors in my life from a baseball coach when I was 14 years old who helped me figure out, you know, what I wanted to do or thought I wanted to do through some professors in college who, you know, helped me find that curiosity. And really importantly, a lot of my partners here at Wayne Capital, I am incredibly fortunate to have remarkable investors for partners. I'm incredibly fortunate to have people who are mentors by nature and think it's their job to teach, not just to do. And so have had a lot of patient partners who have helped me really grow personally in life. But that's not the answer to your question. I'll give you the honest answer to your question. First spring steam. I, you know, would have failed that test. I know it's not something I talk about a lot, but, you know, I first saw first spring steam when I was eight years old. My mother took me to a concert on the board of the USA tour and then found him again when I was working for the Red Sox. My boss was an enormous fan and took me to go see him when I was 19 years old. It made an everlasting impression on that list. Somebody who gave everything they possibly could to being the best at what they did. It made me curious. I wanted to learn more about him. I wanted to learn more about how he does it for the last 25 years. I followed with exceptional passion. Everything he said, written, done, you know, I've seen the guy more times than I would care to admit. But it's become a role model in a mentor for me. Interesting guy who was just all in it, being the very best at what he does. And, you know, I have learned in numberable, innumerable life lessons from just watching how he does his craft. Oh, that is so fun. You know, you never met him, probably never will, but he has had an overwhelming influence in my life. Well, if anybody listening can make that happen, a case of your favorite to make this happen, but I will send it to you. I'll give you your thing. Yeah. Oh, that's great. I think we should end there. Ryan is such a pleasure. It's so refreshing to talk to you and fun and we could keep going, but I really appreciate your time and thank you very much for doing this. Ness is a huge pleasure. Thank you for taking the time and for investing so much of your self in this. I've enjoyed the conversation and hope your listeners do too. Great. Take care. I hope you enjoyed this episode of Real Estate Capital. Before you go, I have a quick favor to ask. We put a lot of thought and effort into this show and making sure we bring you insights from real estate leaders that you know normally find in the mainstream media. So if you're enjoying this show, please remember to follow it on your favorite podcasting app so you never miss an episode. We'd also love for you to share it with others or give us a review on Apple Podcasts so others can find us. Thanks again for tuning in. For more information about our firm, please visit our website at parkmadisonpartners.com.