Paul Mouchakka:

I don't have a bias. If I had any bias, I would say real estate is still a very specialist business. I think it's very hard to be good at everything. And in particular, when you look at the vast spread between the top performing sectors today and the worst performing sectors, I'm looking backwards here, it used to be just a few hundred basis points. Now it's like thousands of basis points. So having a specialist mindset, or at least real deep expertise in a particular sector, I think is very valuable. And that's not to say, I've done plenty of deals with diversified managers. That's not to say I would not, but if I had a bias, that's the bias.

Nancy Lashine:

Hello, and thanks for tuning into 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. In 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. And on this show, we try to bring some of those insights and conversations directly to you. Our guest on this episode is Paul Mouchakka, senior managing director and head of real estate for Alberta Investment Management Corporation, or AIMCo. AIMCo is one of the largest institutional investors in Canada, managing over 160 billion Canadian dollars on behalf of 32 different pensions, endowments and government funds in the province of Alberta.

Paul has a fascinating and long career in real estate, working in both the public and private sectors. He has held senior roles at Morgan Stanley, CalPERS, Pension Consulting Alliance and BentallGreenOak. We discuss Paul's takeaways and lessons learned from these different experiences, and how they inform his current investment posture running AIMCo's real estate portfolio. I hope you enjoy our conversation. Paul, thanks so much for joining us today. I'm really delighted to have you join us. We've known each other casually for a long time, but this is a great opportunity to really catch up. You have such a fascinating and long career in real estate, working both on the public and private sectors. Thanks for joining us.

Paul Mouchakka:

Well, I greatly appreciate the offer and the invitation, and look forward to our discussion, Nancy.

Nancy Lashine:

I've always been intrigued by the particular skills that it takes to be successful both in the private and the public sector, so I'd love to dive in and start talking about that. When you joined CalPERS in 2015 in the senior role of managing investment director head of real assets, it was a time of real challenge. And when you left in 2020, you'd grown the portfolio to 45 billion in equity and things looked a lot rosier. So maybe you can just give us some color about the particular challenges you faced, and how you repositioned the CalPERS portfolio.

Paul Mouchakka:

Yeah, it was an interesting time. There were two in essence conflicting objectives that needed to be dealt with at that point in time. There was a need for selling down some of the legacy challenges that still permeated in the real assets portfolio. At that time, a good chunk of the portfolio, over 40%, was still in legacy assets that were drains from the global financial crisis. And at the same time, there was a large desire to grow the exposure to real estate infrastructure in particular for the total fund. So trying to manage two conflicting objectives over a five-year period. When I got there, the portfolio grew by 20 billion, but we sold over $11 billion of equity during that period of time. So we were fairly aggressive sellers during my tenure in order to try to achieve those two conflicting objectives, as I pointed out.

Nancy Lashine:

Did you have discretion as the staff in buying and selling, or how did that work vis-à-vis the board?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well, the board granted delegated authority to the chief executive officer and chief investment officer, and then it's passed down to you. And my limit at that time was as much as $3 billion, actually.

Nancy Lashine:

Whoa, say that again. $3 billion in one transaction?

Paul Mouchakka:

Yes. Now you would definitely have to communicate and share the information on any single transaction that would come close to that. However, that was the full authority for the head of real estate at that time, and then the CIO had double that. And then anything above that, the board would get involved. But there was a couple of transactions that were well over a billion dollars that I was involved in, and the most important thing was to communicate with the CIO and make sure the other asset class heads were also plugged into any of those decisions. So definitely even if you had the authority, you could not approach it in the way that you are the one running around with a check.

Furthermore, there was a fair amount of process. There was a need for a prudent person opinion from a third party consultant. There was a need for an investment review committee, which I would chair, and there'd be discussion, there'd be other asset classes that would attend. So there was a lot of discussion, and of course analysis and diligence that would have to go through. There was no way somebody could sit in that seat and just, "I like something and I'm just going to put money into it."

Nancy Lashine:

It was a time, I mean, 2015 to 2020 was a pretty heady time for real estate, with asset values rising pretty consistently throughout, if I've got my facts right there. What were some of the harder decisions that you had to make that you might be able to share with us, sir?

Paul Mouchakka:

Yeah. The hardest decisions were ones where you were kind of trapped in a position where you had to decide, do I put more money into something to maybe keep it afloat for a period of time, or do I just look for a haircut to what I'm carrying at and move on with my life? So those were challenges that we faced on a few pockets of the portfolio, but that always felt like the hardest decisions. Because there wasn't a crystal clear way to sort of deal with that dynamic of, do I sink more money into something and maybe it kind of helps turn it around, or do I just cut my losses and maybe I take a haircut and I move on? There's a lot of scrutiny, and I think that's not a bad thing. I think it's actually on balance a good thing. And so you have to be mindful of that.

Nancy Lashine:

So today we're seeing a lot of transactions along those lines. We call them secondary recaps or GP led recaps where some investors have to decide whether to stay in or to exit and take their proceeds. Any advice you'd want to give investors as they think about executing their fiduciary responsibility? Do you take a loss and just cut your losses and hope that your future return on investment exceeds that? Or do you stay in and trust the manager and put more faith in the group that you originally invested with?

Paul Mouchakka:

My philosophy was anchored on did I have another place to put the money? Whether it was new, addition to an existing deal, or if I was selling something at a loss, which is always unfortunate. Or I shouldn't call it a loss, at least below your carry, do you have a plan for that money? And in particular, when you're in a total fund, that money goes usually into the fixed income coffers. And during the previous decade anyway, there was low interest rates. So if you're selling something that maybe you don't think is a great investment, or maybe you don't believe it will hit your bogey, it might've been a higher bogey than fixed income because the rates were so low. So I always felt like if we're going to move on from something that was not a strategic hold, and it was a painful decision as we talked about, then I should have a plan for the money.

Nancy Lashine:

Well, I'd love to jump to sort of a different topic. We'll come back to this, but you've really just sparked my interest. Obviously, rates were very low at the time. Rates have accelerated really rapidly over the past year. How are you adjusting your rate of return expectations for the real estate portfolio now at AIMCo?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well I think in periods like this, and the benefit of being at AIMCo and CalPERS is you're a long-term investor, you can't get too bogged down on one year or a movement in interest rates. It's times like this that you need to be really tethered to a view of what do you believe in for the long run, and not get pulled down in any short-term mindset or short-term concerns. Where that has to play out is in how you manage your current portfolio. The short run should really be a focus on asset management, portfolio management, analytics.

So what we're doing is we're putting a lot of time and effort at AIMCo around those things. We're managing our cash and liquidity, we're paying close attention to that. Secondly, we're paying close attention to what's coming up, any issues, maturities that may be coming up in our portfolio, whether that's in the US, Canada or Europe. And a lot more attention on our analytics, and where's our weights moving? Because right now the office sector, you might be overweight office right now. That may not be the case in a year or two years or three years from now.

Nancy Lashine:

Without moving anything, just by virtue of devaluation. Right.

Paul Mouchakka:

There might be some devaluation there, so we're paying close attention to what I'll call those very important things. Because it's not just the deals you do, it's the management of your portfolio that's going to really drive your outcomes.

Nancy Lashine:

Mm-hmm. What is your core unlevered rate of return for real estate today?

Paul Mouchakka:

AIMCo is a different beast, because we have 16 different entities. It's actually 32 different pools of capital, but 16 entities that roll into AIMCo to make it up. What's different is the asset allocation is done by each of those entities themselves, so they make the asset allocation decisions across the different asset classes. At AIMCo, we are an amalgamation of all these funds, and then we are their fiduciary to invest on their behalf and meet their needs and objectives. So the objectives vary, and the rates of return vary based on the client.

At a place like CalPERS where I was before the asset allocation, the difference there is done by a group within CalPERS, and the board approves that and makes that decision. Then the staff executes on behalf of the constituents and the board within the policies and procedures. In a CalPERS world, there would be a target bogey. In our world, we don't necessarily have one, but at the same time, we pay very close attention to the market. So today, generally speaking, we would be looking for, depending on the market because we're global, somewhere around a 6 to 7% return for our core assets, and a 200 to 400 basis point spread for anything that isn't core.

Nancy Lashine:

Mm-hmm. So circling back to where we were before, talking about what you learned in the private sector that you've been able to apply to your jobs in the public sector, when you think about your time say at Morgan Stanley, how did that influence you in your career?

Paul Mouchakka:

Yeah. I would say what's interesting is I seem to have stumbled in my career to different places where there was a need for change at different inflection points in their history and time. At Morgan Stanley, I wasn't the leader there. I was one of the people, one of the cogs in the wheel to help with the change. What I took from Morgan Stanley was two really, really important lessons in my life, the importance of having a vision, and then sticking to that vision with good judgment. Watching the leaders there that I worked for, I won't embarrass them unnecessarily naming them, but they know who they are.

They had a vision, they had a view on how they wanted to transform the real estate platform there, and an ethos that they wanted to build. I watched them build it over, I was there four years, but I see it today. They've really adhered to that vision, and used good judgment along the way. So it was a great lesson for me that I carried forward when I then moved into a leadership position to actually have a vision, and then understand where the nuances were along the way. And at the same time, not dilute the vision that you initially had that you believe is right for the organization. So that's one lesson.

The second thing I would say is this notion of being a fiduciary in every position, whether it was a consultant, an investment manager, or a sponsor, you have to be a fiduciary first. And that is the thing that has to carry you through. The word fiduciary does get in many ways distorted, because some people believe that if you don't agree with my position, then therefore you are a bad fiduciary. That isn't necessarily the case. It can get overused and sort of weaponized in that way. To me, a good fiduciary is balancing all of the needs of the client, and the pensioners if it's a pension, in determining what is in their judgment the most important thing. So that's another lesson. I wouldn't call it a lesson, but just something I've witnessed in my time. That is the most important thing to have always in the back of your mind.

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah. I'm often so impressed with people who will just be able to negotiate or think through transactions who are sitting in their partner's seat and understand what their needs and considerations are. But at the end of the day, when you're in any of these roles that we're talking about, it's not your money and you're acting in a fiduciary capacity. So yes, that is first and foremost. You've been in a role both in the United States, but also now in Canada. Is there anything that is different serving in your capacity from the perspective of being a Canadian or a group of Canadian plans versus being a very large US state pension plan that you could share with us?

Paul Mouchakka:

Yes, a few things. The market's smaller in Canada and not as deep, so there's less, I'll use the word drama, there's less drama. At the same time, you can get to a solution because the relationships in Canada are very close-knit, and they're meant to stand through downtimes and uptimes. So the dynamic between equity and debt, the lenders and the investors, tends to stay very much more in equilibrium even through difficult times. Whereas in the US, there's so many players and it moves at a much faster pace that it is a little bit more what's in it for me, and not in for a long-term relationship. That isn't necessarily the case across the board. The other aspect to your question I would add is it's a more collegial environment from the point of view of there's a lot more information sharing between the pension funds.

So I feel very comfortable sitting down with any of the peers in what's called the Maple Eight and discussing what we're doing. In many cases, we're partners with them on some deals outside of the US, or outside of Canada and within Canada. And you're able to really work much more closely with them and come to usually very good solutions, because you're not just maybe in one or two deals with them. You might be in a handful. So the amount of information sharing and collegiality across the Canadian pensions, and it's not just in real estate, that really permeates across is I think something that is a big benefit in the long run. I am a citizen of both countries and I'm a proud citizen of both. There's a different mindset insofar of that collegiality, is it a little bit more naturally expected and just done?

Nancy Lashine:

And this is an observation, is it just coincidence or is it part of the structural differences that the large plans in the United States all use consultants, but in Canada we don't see the use of consultants as pervasively?

Paul Mouchakka:

Yeah, I don't know the reason. I actually grew up in the US industry, and so I watched it. And I grew up in the consulting industry with my initial Nori Lietz and Nan and Mark and Pam were the ones that helped me in my career early on. So I really grew up in the real estate industry in the US, and then I went back to Canada. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but I think part of it is due to the fact that the Canadian model has a lot more, there's offices not just in the capitals.

For example, AIMCo has an office in Toronto, there's an office in London, we're opening an office in Singapore. So there are these things. And we're not alone. Actually, most of the Canadian plans have that aspect. So there's a little bit of that what I'll call that mindset that kind of spreads into different markets. I don't know if that was one of the reasons why consultants were not generally used, but I don't know the history or chronology on that.

Nancy Lashine:

Sure, sure. So having been a consultant and then being a consumer of consulting services, how do you think about the optimal role for a real assets consultant, for certainly a US plan today?

Paul Mouchakka:

I always found the best consultants were advice givers and not directors, and the advice givers had a way of getting to you that would potentially impact your decision. So if I look at the consultants, the ones that I've had the best relationships with, and even when I was the consultant, I looked at my role in that capacity. I'm here to give you advice. At the end of the day, I understand it's the board's decision or it's the director's decision, whoever he or she may be. But I'm just here to look out for you, and look out most importantly for the system to give you the best advice I could possibly give you.

And leave you armed with that information, and not try to grab the wheel of the car or ship and turn it the way I want to turn it. So I have found... I've been fortunate. A lot of the consultants I've worked with, whether it's on a project or at the big strategic board level, they have been really just excellent advice givers. Being that rear-view mirror or that blind spot checker, to sort of give you the good advice so that you can make sure you can move things in the best possible way with the best possible outcomes for the system.

Nancy Lashine:

That's quite the challenge. And when you sit down with your managers today, what are you hoping to learn from a conversation with them?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well, when I meet a manager, what I hope I get out of it is some new knowledge, or at least some affirmation on some thinking that I may have. So either change my mind, or give new information or some sort of validation on what's going on in the market. That is usually number one. I'm also very fascinated with how an organization is structured. I will almost always ask, "How are you structured? What are the ways that you organize your team?" I find it interesting to know how do you make decisions? How do you file your team away from the point of view of what's your filter that you look through your organization?

And then the other part that I always get fascinated on is who owns the company? And so those are the things I'd like to learn pretty quickly if I meet a new, somebody either I've ever met with before or someone that wants a relationship. Those are the things that I really want to understand early on, because a lot of the things related to track record, that's verifiable. 20 years ago, 30 years ago, that was a harder thing to get to. But the data and analytics and risk management within our industry has improved so much in the last 20 years that we've got a better...

That's not to say that they're critically important. They drive the ship. I'm much more fascinated and interested in hearing about their organization and how they think, and I pay as much attention to what they don't say as what they do say. If someone gets defensive about something, I wonder why they get defensive about a certain topic. I usually won't express it in a meeting, but I'll ruminate on it after the meeting and wonder why she or he was defensive about that issue, and try to understand in my own mind why.

Nancy Lashine:

I hope every manager listening has heard what you just said. That's great advice. Do you have a bias, by the way, for companies that are owned by larger companies or that are strictly entrepreneurial? Or do you see value in you just want to understand the structure as it is today?

Paul Mouchakka:

I don't have a bias. If I had any bias, I would say real estate is still a very specialist business. I think it's very hard to be good at everything. And in particular, when you look at the vast spread between the top performing sectors today and the worst performing sectors, I'm looking backwards here, it used to be just a few hundred basis points. Now it's like thousands of basis points, and retail and office is tough. And then of course industrial's been on a great run. So having a specialist mindset, or at least real deep expertise in a particular sector, I think is very valuable. And that's not to say, I've done plenty of deals with diversified managers. That's not to say I would not, but if I had a bias, that's the bias.

Nancy Lashine:

Are there areas, property types that you're particularly focusing on these days at AIMCo?

Paul Mouchakka:

It's a big surprise. I'm going to really shock the audience here that we like multifamily and we like industrial, and we like some of the alternative slash niche sectors. I think this is pretty much the playbook for virtually everybody, so the question is what are we missing? I was at a breakfast a couple weeks ago and somebody asked this question of me. I said, "I think the only thing I can think of that we're missing," at least at that moment when I was asked, "was just the impact of technology in real estate." And that's not just proptech, but how it might impact things like development and how we build things. I think that's still a untapped part of the industry that maybe in the next decade is going to be tapped, for lack of a better thought.

Nancy Lashine:

How would you as a large plan access a manager who's focused on that, or is that even relevant? Would you rather just see it play out and then follow it, not necessarily be the first mover?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well I think it comes, if your role is to be much more core and income-oriented, then maybe not. If you have more of a value-add orientation in your role and your strategy, then it might be something that you can do. I know there's some fund managers that target this type of idea, and they kind of bridge this private equity real estate space. That's probably one way that you could do it, or it could be through a different asset class. It may not be through real estate itself into a company. It might be in private equity, or even infrastructure for that matter. So I just think that's an area that is still burgeoning. Could you build something in a more efficient manner using technology?

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more, and it's so much fun to think about. And we have venture investors coming in wanting to talk about it. I went to a dinner last night where there were some real estate proptech companies talking about what they're doing. There are thousands of real estate proptech companies right now, so it still feels like we're maybe in the second or third inning of that game. And betting on the right winners and figuring out what to do is... Someone's going to be very, very right, but it's still quite early in the game.

I'm curious as we're obviously living now through an era of rising inflation. When I started in the business of real estate, I was, "Oh, I'm in real estate because it's an inflation hedge." And of course there was no inflation for a long time. So it's, "Oh, I'm in real estate for diversification," or for current return, or for total return. And when there was distress, and it was opportunistic. How are you thinking today about the role of real estate overall in the portfolio?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well, it's interesting. Because as I mentioned before, our asset allocation is done through this different method. We invest really through two different sleeves. We have a domestic real estate, which is Canada, and a foreign real estate sleeve. Those are separate asset allocation decisions by our clients. So they make that decision, that determination as to how much they want within Canada and how much they want outside of Canada. Our approach today, and it looks to be the approach going forward, is that the orientation in Canada is more core and build to core. One of the challenges in Canada is, not a lot of core properties available, so you do have to do some development to build it and then hold it. And then outside of Canada, our orientation is much more opportunistic value add.

Going forward, though, I do think we'll look to have a bit of core exposure to sort of buoy, act as a base or an anchor to our portfolio outside of Canada. But that's our general approach. So within Canada, inflation is a critical aspect to the role that it plays. Outside of Canada, it is more of a return enhancer, to what you were saying before. And also exposure to more markets, because Canada is not... From a local economy perspective, there's five or six cities that make up most of the country, and that definitely is not a large representation. If you'd look at the MSCI index, Canada represents 3 to 4% of the global index. So getting that exposure beyond just a few cities that represent call it 4% of the pie, is part of the role of the foreign program with the return enhancement.

Nancy Lashine:

Got it. How do you benchmark both within Canada and outside, and how concerned are you with things like tracking error?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well, today we benchmark using the MSCI Canadian property index, and then we have the same thing which is an amalgamation of Europe, UK and the US. I will say that a lot of pension funds that want to grow their private market exposure, tracking error is something that they have to come to a clear view on. If they obsess with the tracking error... Tracking error being how far off are you from your benchmark, in case somebody listening doesn't know. If you obsess about it and feel like that is the most important aspect to how you run your total portfolio, then your odds of growing your private market exposures, that's private equity, real estate, infrastructure, private debt, are pretty low. You will struggle to figure out how to really match your benchmark, because it's not a tradable, buyable, investable thing.

If you have a more nuanced view on tracking error, then you have that ability. So a lot of folks might say, or investors might say, "I want this," but they have to come to grips with that decision, and understand that it's not to ignore the relative game. That's definitely not my argument, but you have to be aware of it. You can't be driven by it. Otherwise, you will have a much more difficult time. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it's pretty darn hard. If you want it to be 40-50% of your portfolio, you will get stuck. So I think we have assessed... My position, I'm biased of course, because I've been on private markets essentially most of my career, if not all my career. We obsess too much about it and we have to have a nuanced view. Otherwise, you do get stuck.

Nancy Lashine:

Mm-hmm. Are you investing at AIMCo through separate accounts where you have more control, or funds or both, and how do you decide?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well, it's mixed. In Canada, we are mostly direct, and even in our foreign program, we're direct to some extent. We do much more joint ventures outside of Canada. Part of it is due to the fact that, some is for tax reasons. However, in Canada, we're much more direct. We really still do funds. Funds are maybe 10% of our Canadian program, and probably closer to 30-ish percent of our foreign program. But my decision is simple. If you have the scale and you have the resources and you have the process, meaning you can make decisions by the process, then you can be a direct investor. But you've got to invest, you've got to have scale. You can't just be too small.

You've got to have the boots on the ground, the people and the skill and the talent. You can have all that, but you better have the right decision-making process so that you can act like a participant. If you don't have all those ingredients, then it's pretty hard for you to really launch a direct program. We definitely have all those ingredients in Canada. Outside of Canada, we have some of those ingredients. Outside of Canada, we do a little bit more of a nuance. But that's my thought process on how I think of fund versus direct versus JV versus separate account.

Nancy Lashine:

Right. That makes sense. Paul, I hear you have a pretty cool guitar collection. Is that true?

Paul Mouchakka:

Yes, and I'm hoping to add to it. Right now I've got two electric guitars, a hollow body and a solid body Telecaster, and I've got two acoustics. It's in its early infant stage. I would like to add at least a couple more before the end of 2023, and I don't know what I want just yet. I keep going to the stores every weekend, and I haven't fallen in love yet with something, so I'm waiting for something to call me.

Nancy Lashine:

Back in the prehistoric era, like this was the 1980s, I was a banker. I would stay at this small inn in Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco, and every room had a guitar from some famous rock musician, obviously framed and put up on the wall. But it was so cool. I mean, it was completely out of the way for any meetings I would possibly go to, but I'd have to stay there, because it was just a lot of fun.

Paul Mouchakka:

Are you a Grateful Dead fan, by chance?

Nancy Lashine:

I've had my moments, yeah. I love The Dead. Yeah. Yeah.

Paul Mouchakka:

Same here. I'm a huge Grateful Dead fan.

Nancy Lashine:

I've actually considered going to concerts in the last few years, but I haven't been to one in a very long time. I don't know. What's the best concert you've ever been to?

Paul Mouchakka:

Geez. Well, I'm almost 50 now, so I'd have to look at it through that. What I would say is the best concert I've been to now would be very different than the 28-year-old version of me, for sure.

Nancy Lashine:

Oh, let's talk about the 28-year-old version of you. That sounds like fun.

Paul Mouchakka:

Well back then, I remember going to see AC/DC at Jones Beach, and that was Cypress Hills, and New York City was pretty wild, but those were my younger days. Today I'm a little more boring and listen to old music. I love live music. It's a passion. It just makes me happy. I'm here in Northern California today, and I went to a Grateful Dead cover band on Saturday.

Nancy Lashine:

Oh, fun, fun.

Paul Mouchakka:

It was a lot of fun, and it was a good time.

Nancy Lashine:

One of the questions I love to ask, and I often think about this, if you knew then what you knew now, how would you have played things differently?

Paul Mouchakka:

I'm going to be boring. I don't think I would. Maybe because I'm an over-analyzer, I would be wondering, "Well, if I change this, would this have happened or that have happened?" But that's because I'm an over-analyzer, and maybe that's a weakness of mine.

Nancy Lashine:

Well, what advice would you give to young people who are looking to get into the real estate business?

Paul Mouchakka:

Well I look back, and I remember three of the most frustratingly boring tasks I was given early on in my career ended up being three of the most foundational things to help me in how I make decisions today and how I think things through. I remember having to do reconciliations on balance sheets and income statements, and how that got me to a place where having to do them for so long, I can look through an income statement, a balance sheet, a performance return very efficiently today. I remember doing deal logs, piles and piles of PPMs, and creating an old Access database. There wasn't the computing power of today.

And then being able to skim through terms and conditions, and now I can do that in no time. The third thing was building a database at one of my prior stops. Again, it was a very large portfolio. There was no attributes or exposure analysis within that portfolio. Having to roll up your sleeves and figure out what's the apartment exposure versus retail exposure and all that, it was never done and was a big task. And it, again, was foundational for me.

Nancy Lashine:

Yeah, that's such good advice. I remember one of my early bosses saying to me, "80% of what you're going to do is just tedious and boring, but you're doing it so that you have the opportunity to learn at that 20%." So that's a little bit of a different message than you just conveyed, I understand, but it's just a valuable... I think as a young person coming into the business, instant gratification is definitely not always available. And just persistence and putting one foot in front of the other when it's not so satisfying is hugely valuable down the road.

Paul Mouchakka:

And believe me, there were days that I was shaking my head wondering, "What the heck am I doing with my life?"

Nancy Lashine:

And they brought you here. Paul, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts today, and your vast experience with our listeners. We really appreciate your taking the time to do this. I know you are a very busy man with lots of demands, so thanks so much.

Paul Mouchakka:

It was my pleasure. Always enjoyable to talk to you, Nancy.

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. 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.