A lot of people have asked me if I will get involved in the NYC mayor race by supporting a candidate that can defeat Zohran Mamdani. TBH, I’m torn and undecided. Like every other city run by democrats, NYC is a broken kleptocracy. Taxes are astronomical and services are pathetic

Despite housing and groceries at all time highs…. What happened to all that affordable talk

I used an OpenAI agent to research and build a presentation I'm giving. Multiple errors. I ended up redoing most of it. It probably would have been easier to do myself. I can confirm it's about the same quality as an associate straight out of UC Berkeley.

Altus up for sale… this could get interesting. Whoever is working on alternative DCF models might have a shot.

Nothing like a reset at Sea Ranch

Everyone: “AI will kill the office.” AI companies: leasing bigger offices and paying for housing near HQ so teams can work in person. Actions > Words

“If your $500K engineer isn’t burning at least $250K in tokens, something is wrong.”

This sounds insane until you realize it’s not about current reality. It’s starting the social conversation. $20/mo is the subsidy 1/2 of an employee cost in tokens is how they justify the AI build out spend. Jensen is setting the anchor.

If you needed proof Claude was getting dummer over the past few days. Alex Finn

The housing debate gets a lot more honest when you name the market, the project, and the unit count. Abstract villain talk is cheap. Specific supply math is not. If a policy sounds good on TV but means fewer projects get financed or built, it is not a housing solution. It is

Housing people love saying build more right up until approvals, mandates, and delay costs show up. Latest framing: - $100K+ added to a home by the bureaucrat tax - regulation = 24% of single-family cost - 41% of multifamily cost At some point the math has to matter more than

If institutional owners control 0.7% of U.S. single-family stock, but the policy response risks 72,000 fewer homes a year, we are not fixing affordability. We are picking a villain and making supply worse.

While the U.S. housing conversation is busy targeting institutional ownership, foreign strategic capital is still buying into American homebuilding. Sekisui House bought MDC for roughly $5B. The people writing the biggest checks are voting on long-term housing demand. The

Institutional purchases are already down more than 90% from 2022. So if the big new housing idea is still "go after institutions," you are arguing with a smaller and smaller slice of the problem while supply is still broken.

Every anti-BTR take should have to answer one question: What replaces the units if this channel gets choked off? Not vibes. Not a press release. Actual replacement supply. If there’s no answer, it’s not a serious housing argument.

In D.C., BTR gets framed like an ideological problem. In actual markets, it looks a lot more boring and a lot more important: homes delivered lease-ups filled corridors funded Housing gets real fast when you leave the hearing room.

If your housing bill removes ~72,000 future rental homes a year, you don’t get to call it affordability reform without showing the replacement supply. Killing one delivery channel is not a housing strategy. It’s a headline.

The market doesn’t wait for a bill to become law. Capital reprices the risk the moment it believes the rule might stick. That means supply can freeze before the press release, before the vote, and definitely before the ribbon cutting you wanted three years from now.

Transactions are happening because someone is absorbing the affordability gap. Right now, builders are absorbing more of it than the headline suggests—through rate buydowns, incentives, and margin givebacks. That’s not fake demand. But it’s definitely not clean strength either.

I was definitely was not expecting this from CBS.