Adam Gallistel:

I've always struggled with the idea that office is a core asset class. Frankly, it's always, even pre-COVID, exhibited more volatility than a lot of the niche asset classes which won't even be considered for core treatment. Core means high free cashflow conversion, using manufactured housing as an example. It's one of the most stable income streams that we've come across. 

Nancy Lashine:

Hello, and thanks for tuning in to Real Estate Capital. I'm your host, Nancy Lashine, of Park Madison Partners. Park Madison is a capital solutions and advisory firm serving the global institutional real estate business. We sit at the intersection of real estate managers and their capital partners. Then bringing these two groups together, we speak to a broad range of thought leaders about recent trends in real estate investing, capital markets, operations, and technology. On this show, we try to bring some of those insights and conversations directly to you. 

My guest on this episode is Adam Gallistel, head of the Americas for GIC Real Estate, and a member if GIC's Global Investment Committee. GIC is the sovereign wealth fund for the government of Singapore, one of the largest and most active real estate investors in the world. GIC's total portfolio is worth over 400 billion with assets in 40 countries, including its real estate portfolio of over 30 billion. 

My conversation with Adam occurred in October 2020, just days before the US Presidential election. While investors' concerns have changed since then, with new things to worry about like inflation and high interest rates, my conversation with Adam still provides timely insights about how one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds navigates market cycles. We jump right in with Adam's story of how he found his way into the world of real estate and his path to GIC, before we make a deeper dive into GIC's investment thesis, and the intricacies of the assets and investments Adam covers. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Adam as much as we enjoyed having it. I've been fortunate to call Adam a friend for over 15 years, and I find him as smart, and funny, and entertaining today as the first time we met over lunch. 

Take us back to the beginning. Tell us where you started your real estate career. 

Adam Gallistel:

Candidly, I fell backwards into real estate. I had been an undergrad at Penn. I was studying intellectual history, which is a pretentious way of saying the history of philosophy and the history of ideas. For a while, thought I wanted to become a professor of history, which is odd at Penn, with the warden overlay. Probably somewhere around my senior year, I realized that there were five good jobs in the country for what it was I was working on. I wasn't even in the top five of the people at Penn studying my particular chosen muse. 

I realized the path I thought I was on was not the path I was on, but really had no idea what I was going to do afterwards. I graduated college without a resume, without a job, and proceeded to go off to Turkey to sail the Turkish coast for a little while. Then I ran out of money, so I moved home with my parents. I lived there for about five days. I was like, "I need to get a job." My parents are great, they had no pressure on me. They were happy to have me there, but I was not happy to be there.

This was the late '90s, in the mid to late '90s, and the job market was pretty good. Liberal arts degrees weren't in demand in financial services, much as they aren't today. But liberal arts degrees, consulting firms would hire you. The first callback I got was from a group called The Concord Group based out of Newport Beach, California. Went down and had an interview, they gave me a job offer. Pursuant to the earlier statement that I just need to get a job, I took the offer that was given to me, and so began my career in real estate. 

The Concord Group was great, I learned a lot. It actually turned out that I liked real estate. But candidly, I didn't like where I was on the food chain, in that at the time, Concord Group did a lot of third party market validation, product positioning studies for land developers and home builders. I realized that we were largely only being hired after somebody had decided what they wanted to do. We were there to dress up an investment committee memo and say things like, "Don't trust me, trust the experts at The Concord Group," for our independent opinion that we had been paid to give. 

As much as I liked the people there, I just wanted to move off the food chain. Also, as a nerdy Jewish guy riding the desk, Newport Beach is a lovely, lovely place, but it's not great for a nerdy Jewish guy riding the desk. My roommate was a lifeguard. It was great for him, but I figured I should go where the other nerdy Jewish guys go, so I went to New York. Sorry. 

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah, you digress. Adam, you digress.

Adam Gallistel:

I digress. I digress. Anyway, I was lucky enough shortly after moving here, to get a job with one of our former clients, which was LaSalle Investment Management, which at the time had a land development investment group. In the early days, we were investing what at the time seemed like an unfathomable amount of money to me. We were doing $10 million equity checks, $15 million equity checks. Sometimes, $20 million equity checks into land development. Some of the people we were doing it with were people like SunCal. This was pre Lehman giving them money. It was fun and interesting. 

At some point during all of that, I got a call from one of the higher ups at LaSalle. They said, "Hey, guess what? We're merging the JLW and we're going public. Land development is absolutely not anything we want to talk about in the context of our public offering. We're going to be closing this group down. You have two choices. You can either work yourself out of a job." Or the firm had been hired to essentially work out of The Diplomat in Hollywood, Florida, when it was owned by the plumbers and pipe fitters. 

Not really knowing much other than working myself out of a job didn't seem like a good idea, I chose to door B. Spent a few years doing that, getting it open. Went back to business school. Spent a summer at Goldman doing banking. Really liked Goldman, liked the culture, thought I was going to go back. Then I had an offer in essentially their debt securitization group. I just wasn't that interested in the debt securitization group. I graciously turned down the offer. Then had a fairly terrifying second year of business school, where at first, I started out arrogant, I would say. Because I was like, "Oh, I got an offer from Goldman, I turned it down. This is going to be easy, everybody's going to want to hire me." 

I don't know, after about my 40th rejection, it was certainly humbling. As I got towards the end of the year, I had a couple options on the table. One of them was GIC, which frankly, was largely unknown to me. This was 2003, I guess. Pre even the coining of the term sovereign wealth fund. I remember sitting with a woman at the time, named Heidi Kosch. I said, "How much money do you guys have to invest?" She said, "I can't tell you that." I said, "How much money did you invest last year?" "Can't tell you that either." I said, "Okay." She said, "Trust me, it's a lot."

She seemed very trustworthy so I went to work for GIC. Then have been here ever since. I thought it was going to be a few year stint. Really, I think I've stayed because GIC is a fascinating place. It's both the fountainhead of capital, really it is one of the true sources of capital, and it's also largest repository of market information. Being able to have the power of the fountainhead and the information that, frankly, resides inside of investment banks but they can't act on, is a very potent combination for someone whose curious about the world and looking to express views through investments. 

Along the way, we've had the team grow from, I think when I hired, there were seven or eight people in the Americas, and now we've got 40-some odd people. I've had the pleasure and honor of watching the portfolio and the organization grow into what is really a remarkable institution. That's my story. 

Nancy Lashine:

Wow, Adam. I feel like we should just stop there. It's such a great story. If anyone ever thinks it's a straight line to the gold ring, you just have to listen to that because yeah, there were a lot of twists and turns. I love the way you've described your current job as "being curious about the world and looking to express views through investments," because that dates back to your intellectual history days, I'm sure. It's just having a much broader than where do I find "the best risk-adjusted return?"

Back me into, in terms of relative returns, how does GIC allocate capital around the world? Do you have one benchmark, or how do you think about it? 

Adam Gallistel:

Yeah, sure. We price capital around the world basically on a spread to risk-free rate basis. We start, in any given country, local currency bonds. We take that, we add a risk premium for being in real estate. Then we have a system that allows us to evaluate everything up and down the risk spectrum, that scores out essentially the idiosyncratic risks of a deal. That would be anything from composition of returns, percentage returns coming from income versus capital gain, the security of the income, how volatile it is to how much leverage is in the system. To some more subjective factors, such as quality of the counterparties involved, quality of the location, et cetera and so on. 

For every deal we look at anywhere in the world, we use that system to score out in each of the categories I suggested, of which ultimately there are 16, has associated risk premium with it. We start with risk-free rate, you start with general cost of being in real estate, and then you add all these idiosyncratic risk premium. That system is just a tool, it's not perfect. Frankly, in a world with zero interest rates, it probably tends to possibly understate risk returns in developed markets.

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah. 

Adam Gallistel:

But what is important about it is it provides a unifying and organizing framework for the firm to think about whether we're being paid for the risk we're taking in any country, in any deal. It allows us to rationally approach both, say a development of residential in Mumbai, in the same day we talk about a triple-net Amazon lease for 25 years located in the best part of the Inland Empire. Each has its own cost of capital. We can agree or disagree with the suggested cost of capital, but it provides an organizational principle to make decisions rationally. 

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah. Do you commit in local currency, and then is there any hedging going on? Or you just assume you're going to be longterm in all these markets and the currency risk is in that framework that you've outlined? 

Adam Gallistel:

Unlike virtually any other investor in the world, the place we don't invest is Singapore so we have no natural hedge currency. We do have a benchmark currency, which is a mix of global currencies, which allows us essentially to be naturally hedged since we have a diversified funding mix of currencies for most countries. We do do some hedging on the margin, if we are in off-benchmark currencies. I guess the short answer is it depends. 

Nancy Lashine:

That's a good one. Before we move on to what's going on here in the US, where there's so much to talk about. But I'd love to hear your views about what's going on in Brazil today. You spent a good decade plus following things there and it's been a very deep cycle. There was a real interesting interview you did recently where you developed an index for Brazilian investments. I'm just curious what the house view is on investing in that market today? 

Adam Gallistel:

Yeah. To be clear, we didn't do it. We just partnered with MSCI, who actually developed the index. The thinking behind developing it is just if you look at the generally available indexes for private real estate, they don't reflect the investible universe, which is what an index should do, if you think about it in public market terms. Rather, they reflect by and large the historical artifacts of how those indexes came about. Either being based in Europe or the US, and the industries that grew up around them. 

We just thought it was time, given that there is increasing institutional interest in Brazil, to work with MSCI to start essentially measuring how we're doing relative to the other participants in the market on the principle that you make what you measure.

Sorry. What was your other question? 

Nancy Lashine:

It was just are you allocating into Brazil today? 

Adam Gallistel:

Oh, yeah. 

Nancy Lashine:

We've been, at Park. 

Adam Gallistel:

What's my view on Brazil? Yeah. 

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah. My premise on that is obviously you had been so active in Brazil for quite a while, from 2009 through to about three years ago. But it's just been really hard for most North American investors to take a longterm view there. The currency's so volatile, and with everything that went on with Car Wash and all. It just felt like the excess return that people felt they had to make for taking the country risk has made it a place where there's been a lot less international capital going into real estate there. Which could be a great opportunity for you guys, but maybe not. I'm just curious what your view is. 

Adam Gallistel:

We continue to be constructive on Brazil. As you point out, it's been a rough decade for Brazil. If you roll back pre-COVID, a lot of people, including ourselves, believe Brazil was about to be on a roll in that it had made constitutional reforms that made the state for financially solvent longterm. It had two years of anemic but positive growth out of the deepest recession they've ever had. There were a lot of good tailwinds going on in Brazil. Then COVID hit and that went away. 

I would say from a macro perspective, Brazil is and remains challenging. That doesn't mean there aren't good investment opportunities in Brazil. In fact, one of the interesting things is that we've actually managed to, in some of the assets that we purchased during say, the last five years, we've actually managed to monetize, despite the poor operating environment. That's just because Brazil has had the same drop in interest rates. In relative terms, actually a larger drop in interest rates as the rest of the world post-COVID. That's led to a desire for yield. 

Even notwithstanding the objectively challenging macro fundamentals in Brazil, we've actually been able to harvest some quite interesting gains on the back of cap rates being at a second derivative of interest rates, and people paying record low cap rates for assets in Brazil even though operations aren't fantastic.

You can still make money there. Our thinking in Brazil overall is that it is a bit of a trading market. The windows for liquidity open and shut quite rapidly. There is a decent amount of volatility, but there are opportunities to make money there. For the not faint of heart, I should say. 

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah. Yeah, you make such a great point. It's a big macro point. But obviously as rates have declined, in Brazil that's declined hundreds of hundreds of basis points, and here maybe 150 basis points. But investors who have been debt investors are looking more and more to equity for any kind of yield. That doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. The Fed's clearly preaching that here. 

That flood to equity and what that will ultimately do to values and the ability to find liquidity through real estate, I think is definitely fueling some of what we're seeing in terms of the expected opportunity that real estate investors are seeing right now. 

Where real estate's transacting in any kind of volume today, so obviously industrial, residential, and the rural areas in blue states primarily, triple-net lease, medical office, life sciences, that pricing is all pre-COVID pricing and there's a fair number of bids for any of those deals. The biggest part of the capital markets, office, is just stuck at the moment because there's no transparency in trades. There's no transparency on leasing. There's this question of where the demand's going to be. That's what we've been seeing broadly in the market. We obviously operate in all four quadrants, which I think is an interesting aspect of this. 

Tell us what you've been doing in the last seven months, in terms of new activity. 

Adam Gallistel:

Sure, last seven months. Frankly, the last seven months seems like a decade. Both in terms of just effort produced, and also not all seven months are equal in terms of how we've approached things. 

I'd say initially, going in the late days of March, early April, there was a ton of price action. There was a lot of forced selling in the debt markets, which we were one of the few ... There were several players. But we made meaningful investments for a period of about two weeks in the debt markets. Largely buying in capital structures that we already knew and had underwritten, and largely buying senior to positions we already had. Cognizant of the fact that, since we already owned the junior, to a certain extent, we own the risk. If we were comfortable with that piece, we should be comfortable up the stack at higher returns. Two, we didn't, given the speed at which things were happening, we thought it was best to focus on what we knew. And also, we were concerned that if we bought into a bunch of different capital structures, essentially you're buying into a series of potentially cascading liabilities if you intend to defend all of them. While our balance sheet is big, we didn't necessarily want to be all over the place as to how we think about things. 

We bought a decent amount of debt for about two weeks. Then [inaudible 00:18:02] came along, that all stopped. We've actually sold out some of that debt, subsequently. We did similar things in the public equity markets, and actually round-tripped a decent number of stocks there as well. On the private markets, there was nothing trading in the early days so we didn't do anything there. 

As you fast-forward to the rest of the time, we've continued to buy slowly some debt securities that we think are mispriced, but it's been slow-going. We've continued to play in the public equity markets to a lesser degree. And frankly, see better value in the public equity markets than we do in the private markets, where the bid as spread remains large, certainly in the COVID affected names.

I'd say our approach on the private markets going forward is putting together ... I'm sure a lot of these people have heard people from Baupost talked recently at the Wharton Conference, Kleiman, and people from Blackstone talked at various conferences recently. Blackstone pursues a more thematic approach to the world, and Baupost is very idiosyncratic opportunities, opportunistic approach to the world. 

I would say we do both. Just because the scale of our balance sheet, we need to have as wide an aperture as possible. I would say right now, in terms of scale deployment and investment, it's really in the sectors you mentioned are the only places we continue to be able to invest in size. Frankly, with some trepidation, but we continue to invest in a lot of the tailwind sectors. Life sciences, industrial. Debatable as to whether or not storage is tailwind, but we've done some stuff in storage recently as well. Manufactured housing. There's been data centers, all over those areas, have actually continued to do quite well and we continue to feed them, although at ever-increasing valuations. 

At the same time, we've also tried to run into the COVID fire. We've done a couple of preferred securities, which are a way to bridge the bid as spread between equity and debt. In the lodging space, we've been buying pieces of paper that, it's debatable as to whether or not we get paid off, but we think the basis is good in some of the gateway cities in traditional asset classes. 

As you said, office right now, placing equity, we're finding challenging. Overall, look, I'd put myself somewhere in the middle between the office REIT CEOs who have no choice but to say, "Nothing's going to change, it's going to be great all over again," and maybe the analyst who cover them who say that the world is falling apart. Look, I think it's going to be a rough decade for gateway office owners. I fundamentally believe the cities aren't dead, they come back. The trends of urbanization have not be reversed, they've just been paused.

That said, if you say post economic downturn, which is going to be horrific as are all economic downturns for office leasing, that stabilized demand is say 95%, 90% of where it was before because of work from home, et cetera and so on. On the margin, I think it has to affect it a little bit. That actual 5% of incremental demand is very important to office landlords because pricing power in the office market is all about marginal demand. Especially in markets like New York and San Francisco, where there's been a ton of new supply added. 

Taking 5% out of your stabilized demand number is actually, more often than not, has you being below say 90% occupancy in a given market. In a market like New York City that has, I don't know, what is it, 450 million square-feet, if you've got more than 10% vacancy, tenants have a lot of choices. It's a bit like Vegas, where in the hotel market, Vegas runs in the 80s and 90s, and yet they haven't been able to push rate for a decade because 10% vacancy is Vegas is still more hotel rooms than most cities have.

I think it's going to be really difficult for landlords to gain pricing power for quite a long time. Then you couple with that, with some of the lasting legacies of WeWork, which are increased work letters, more flexible office space. More flexible office lease terms, sorry, not space. You've got this dual hit of increased capital investment, either trying to stay current, or cool, or sexy, coupled with shorter lease tenure, coupled with a lack of pricing power. Ultimately, if you've run that through your underwriting, in present value terms, even putting aside the economic downturn, it's hard to see office coming back to the valuations that it was pre-COVID for quite a while. 

Nancy Lashine:

You're making those 40, 50 percent in declines in REIT values. They look like they're making more sense in some of the private markets at the moment. Yeah, I'm sure it's an unpopular view to voice that but I hear what you're saying. 

I was just talking with someone else who was saying although office is the biggest part of the real estate capital market and it's always been considered a core asset, at the moment it doesn't feel core. It reminded me of when I spent 10 years working for a manager whose focus was regional malls. That was the other thing that was really big and core. The cap backs was always understated for regional malls. You've just made the case for why it's going to be understated for the foreseeable future for office as well. That's a lot of real estate to digest and it's a lot of mark to market that hasn't been done in the private sector yet, if that all comes to pass. 

Adam Gallistel:

Yeah. I've always struggled with the idea that office is a core asset class. Frankly, office is a better business in other parts of the world than it is in the US. Frankly, office is a better business, at least just structurally, on the West Coast of the US than it is on the East Coast. Because on the East Coast, you're signing leases that step up, I don't know, every five to seven years. Usually, the steps that don't meet inflation. You're playing Russian Roulette as to when they roll. A lot of the below the line capital intensity. If you're buying things at for caps, your economic cap rate is one, two percent, when you factor in all the TIs and LCs you're using to buy those leases. 

I've actually never quite understood why office has been considered core, so to speak. Frankly, it's always, even pre-COVID, exhibited more volatility than a lot of the niche asset classes, which won't even be considered for core treatment. When people use the word core, to me it's a bit like a Rorschach test, it's whatever people want it to say. To me, core means high free cashflow conversion, high recurring income, good financing spreads. Frankly, office hasn't offered any of those things for quite a long time. Whereas using manufactured housing as an example, it's one of the most stable income streams that we've come across, similarly. I think the public markets actually appreciate this much better than private instance. Roughly half of the public market's index is stuff that isn't in the traditional four or five food groups of real estate. Frankly, that half has been the better performing half for at least the last two decades. 

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah, it is. It's interesting and there's definitely a case study in there. When I started in real estate, which is about a decade before you, residential multifamily was not considered an institutional investment. 

Adam Gallistel:

Yeah. 

Nancy Lashine:

The idea was that institutions wouldn't want to own, have to be responsible for someone's kitchen flooding, or whatever. Obviously, multifamily, until industrial, has been the most successful investment over the last decade for institutions. It'll be interesting to see how these "specialty" categories work their way into institutional portfolios. They're just not as big right now so that's a challenge. 

Where are you thinking about urban residential? How are you viewing that space? Because obviously, there's been so much in construction, and right now you're seeing rents fall in a lot of markets. But there may well be some buying opportunities, going forward. 

Adam Gallistel:

You're talking about high rise multifamily in cities? 

Nancy Lashine:

Yes.

Adam Gallistel:

Look, it's going to be a rough ... Frankly, I'm probably more constructive on the longterm prospects for multifamily. In that, like I said, I think cities come back. I think this idea that we're moving back to the '60s and '70s, to the suburban type lifestyle that was touted, I just don't buy it. Maybe I'm blind to it because I live in the city myself. But I just look around the world, this suburban exit option that has existed for COVID, frankly the US is somewhat unique in that respect.

If you looked at Asia, a suburban in say, for example China, is just the densest urban environment you can imagine 10 miles away. It's still a city, true urban environment and people have all come back there. I just think really, the choice in most of Asia, is rural or urban. I think given that choice, the urban wins every time. Even in Europe, the suburbs frankly are, from a livability perspective, are a much less compelling value proposition for most because you have to go way out in order to get any access to the urban environment. I think ultimately it comes back there, and it has come back faster. 

Then coming back to the US, I don't see any reason why the US will behave differently longterm, in that fashion. As a result, urban multifamily, I think patience and courage would be my words for that. Like office, we will see opportunities. I just think some more pain needs to run through the system before the legacy's owners anchoring of expectations has had time to adjust, or because their lenders force them to adjust. I think, to your point, there will be interesting opportunities there. 

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah. Well, maybe it's also because I'm a nerdy Jewish kid that grew up in New York City, I certainly agree with you about cities will eventually recover. Longterm, that's where the value will retain itself. 

I guess we want to hear your thoughts at lessons learned. When we think back to 2008, '09, that painful decline and unwinding some of the things that you had to unwind there. What are you thinking about in terms of lessons learned, and how are you taking that experience and having it inform your decisions in what will be a post-COVID environment? 

Adam Gallistel:

Part of it is ... How am I taking those lessons? Good question. I do come back to the earlier statement about patience and courage. I think the good news for us, relative to the last financial crisis, is that we went into this crisis a lot better prepared. As a firm, we had basically had called the top several years too early. We had been making investments that, at the time, we thought as being very much more defensive than offensive, looking for steady income streams. Now of course, some of the things that we thought were defensive are anathema to COVID. Like betting on an urban multifamily, for example. 

Things I tell my staff all the time is, "Look, this too shall pass. Don't waste a good crisis." They're all cliches, so I don't know if I have anything. Frankly, the cliches exist for a reason and it's important to repeat them, especially to the young staff who, in many cases, didn't go through a prior crisis. Saying, "Hey, look, don't get scared. Markets tend to overshoot in both directions." When markets do overshoot, or when buyers find they need liquidity, that's when our competitive advantages come to the fore. 

Especially on the last, the ability to provide large capital solutions in a short amount of time becomes very highly valued in moments like this. I think recognizing that and making sure we keep the foot on the gas, and not try to time the absolute bottom are some of the lessons that we take from the last ones. We have the benefit of, I guess look smart in that regard, because we're so under invested. Frankly, we have a need to invest through the cycle at all times. Sometimes our need to invest can be perceived as being contrarian, when it's really just us trying to execute the business plan we've had all along. But we'll take the credit when it's given. 

Nancy Lashine:

Always take the credit. That's a lesson. It may be a cliché, but that's a lesson I learned early and often. 

I want to switch gears for a second and just ask are you factoring climate change into your investment process? Has that changed at all? 

Adam Gallistel:

This has become actually a firm-wide, client-driven initiative, and ESG in general. I'd be lying if we started out, much as Asia in general, were we at the forefront of any of this, like say the European institutional community was? No, the answer is no. But we're a fast follower. 

Look, Singapore's an island in the middle of an ocean. There is a certain existential threat to Singapore as a country from rising sea levels. That existential threat is really reflected in a lot of how we think about investing. And on that, yes we do, in our underwriting, look at environment. Both the environmental impacts of what we're doing, as well as the environmental feasibility longterm of that structure, since it's not chattel, its immovable, of being above ground 20, 30 years from now. We think in those kind of time horizons. 

Frankly, I think the client thinks in even longer time horizons. It's just the clients' desires to think in even longer term horizons, and just the realities of running a business, probably cause us to shorten the timeframes to something that is more near-term. 

Nancy Lashine:

Right. Have you red-lined any geographies because of rising sea levels? 

Adam Gallistel:

Not explicitly, so no. But there are investments we've passed on because we're concerned about that it might not be there in a few years. 

Nancy Lashine:

Okay. Well, I'm going to wrap up with a couple of personal questions. Have you had any important mentors in your career and what did you learn from them? 

Adam Gallistel:

Frankly, I think the biggest mentor in my career is, and this again, may sound cheesy, it was outside of my career. It was actually my grandmother, who instilled in me early on just the importance and primacy of exercising curiosity in everything you do. I think that's a lesson that has stayed with me throughout my career. I've had the pleasure of working with wonderful people who've guided me along the way. Including a man name Colin Murphy, who was at LaSalle Investment Management. And a woman named Emma Tyrance, and her mother-in-law, Marta Borsanyi at The Concord Group. And as well as Dr. Seek, here at GIC. But I didn't have one father figure, if you will, who guided me throughout my career. 

Nancy Lashine:

Needless to say, I love the grandmother image. I think it might make many of us think about our own grandmothers. I had a grandmother who, my mother's father died while my grandmother was pregnant with her in the influenza epidemic of 1918, which of course, a timely reference. My grandmother worked every day of her life to support these two kids who didn't have a father. Certainly, it instilled a certain work ethic in our family. Appreciate that reference. 

I know you love music. Why don't you share with us maybe the best live concert you've ever attended? 

Adam Gallistel:

I think the best live concert I ever attended was when I was in high school, Perry Farrell had just broken up with Jane's Addiction and founded this band called Porno For Pyros. Me and my friends sneaked across the border to Tijuana and watched him give one of their first shows in a really seedy, disgusting bar packed with about 150 people. Perry Farrell was getting off and doing stage dives, and the energy was incredible. It was one of the ... In terms of live music experiences, it was probably the best one I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. 

Nancy Lashine:

Adam, thanks. I have no idea how to top that so we're going to end there. Thanks so much for your thoughts, for your candor, and your insights. Really, really appreciate it. 

Adam Gallistel:

Okay. 

Nancy Lashine:

Take care.

Adam Gallistel:

Thanks. 

Nancy Lashine:

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, in making sure we bring you insights from real estate leaders that you don't normally find in the mainstream media. 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.