#meanwhile void is the ceo of ‘other people don’t exist’

[psychicthepsychic-daily]

hood is the ceo of “other people have it worse” /HJ

[dorishull]

Modern Selling Strategy: Act Now or Become Irrelevant

If you compare the lists of the Fortune 500 companies from 1955 and 2014, you’ll see that just 61 companies appear in both lists.

Or look at it another way… Of the companies that were on the list in 1955, only 12.2% made it to 2014.

Almost 88% of the companies from 1955 have either gone bankrupt, merged, or still exist but have fallen from the top Fortune 500 companies.

Forbes recently reported that 50 years ago, a Fortune 500 company could reasonably expect to be on the list for around 75 years.

Today, it’s less than 15 years and declining rapidly.

The lesson here is a simple one: adapt or die.

We live in the age of innovation and disruption.

And no industry is safe.

No company is too big to fail.

Just ask Kodak, Blockbuster, Blackberry, Toys ‘R’ Us…

The list goes on…

And while for some company’s innovation and disruption is a scary proposition, it also offers enormous opportunities for companies that understand times are changing. And with changing times, the sales process is changing; the way people connect and do business is changing; and standing still is a death sentence.

When it comes to sales, traditional methods – cold calls, cold email, networking etc. – are proving less and less effective.

Meanwhile, a modern selling strategy emerged: social selling. It has disrupted how deals are made and become the key selling strategy and revenue driver for some of the world’s largest companies.

The cold hard truth is that traditional sales methods are becoming irrelevant, and forward-thinking companies are aggressively capturing market share, growing rapidly and increasing their bottom lines by adopting social selling.

Social selling is the simplest, fastest and most ethical way to connect with your ideal prospects and turn on the tap of a continuous stream of high-quality leads. This modern selling approach brings predictable growth to sales and your bottom line.

According to LinkedIn, more than 90% of today’s top salespeople owe their success to social selling. If you’re not adopting this modern selling strategy, you risk getting left behind.

In this article, I explain where companies bleed money and lose opportunities, show ways they can stop falling behind, and share some cautionary tales of what happens when a company fails to evolve.

Where companies fall short and lose money

The tragedy of business-to-business (B2B) sales today is that good companies are sleepwalking into negative growth because they don’t realize the nature of sales has changed. Cold calling, cold email and networking are no longer effective ways to connect with modern buyers.

Consider these statistics on the current state of traditional sales methods:

Only 9% of cold sales emails are opened.

On average, it takes 18 calls to connect with a buyer.

According to a Baylor University study, approximately just ONE appointment gets made for every 330 calls your sales team makes.

On average, sales people make 33 dials per day.

It takes eight attempts to reach a prospect with cold calls. In 2007, it took 3.68 attempts.

To compound matters, 90% of C-Level executives – the people with the power to make buying decisions – ignore cold calls completely.

And if you do get through to them, the overall success of cold calls is just 2%.

Now consider the yearly wages and training investments you make in your sales team, and ask yourself…

Is your sales team delivering an acceptable ROI?

Sticking to traditional selling methods creates a vicious cycle, threatening your business.

As a sales leader, you’ve invested time, attention, training and resources into your people, only to watch them fail to hit their targets month after month, quarter after quarter.

When this happens, good salespeople become disheartened and disengaged and decide to leave your company because they feel they’ll never hit their targets with the strategy they’ve been asked to execute.

That leaves you with the very expensive problem of recruiting and training new sales professionals.

When sales people discover the art and science of social selling, however, they find themselves empowered as they consistently convert leads and hit their numbers. As a result, they enjoy their work more and stay in their jobs longer.

Clearly, social selling is a win-win for companies AND their sales teams.

“Traditional sales tactics no longer work because desensitized buyers never (or take days to) respond to emails and refuse to answer calls from numbers they don’t recognize. But modern sellers who effectively engage on social networks are seeing meaningful results. These modern sellers create 45% more opportunities and are 51% more likely to achieve quota than those who do not embrace social.”

This passage, from a landmark report by marketing leader Forrester, sums up the pain as well as enormous opportunity B2B companies face when selling their products or services.

But what’s actually happened?

Why are businesses failing to connect with their ideal prospects?

The truth is sales has evolved, and smart companies have adopted new modern sales strategies, tools and platforms to steal away the business their competitors are still chasing with outdated strategies.

Modern buyers are more knowledgeable than ever before thanks to the internet, which has tilted the balance of power and access to information in their favor.

The modern buyer doesn’t want to be sold via the old ways.

They expect a great experience from today’s modern sellers and are only interested in speaking with someone who is well-researched, informative and almost instinctively knows where they, as a buyer, are in their buying journey and can speak to them at that level at the right time.

Consider the following:

74% of buyers conduct more than half of their research online before making a purchase.

84% of CEOs and VPs use social media to make purchasing decisions.

Buyers complete 57% of the buying decision before ever actively engaging with sales teams.

Essentially, modern buyers are armed with all the information they need BEFORE they get to the stage where they want to speak to a salesperson.

This means that for the modern seller, it’s about building a relationship – NOT closing a sale.

Given these two factors – an empowered modern buyer and the ease and accessibility of modern social connections – how can you strategically, efficiently and profitably build relationships that convert into clients?

You use the right approach on the right platform. The best platform to do this on is…

LinkedIn.

LinkedIn: Your Big Opportunity

LinkedIn is not the flashiest or most exciting of the dominant social media platforms, but it is where business is done.

Why?

Because it’s the only social media platform where you have an ungated access to CEOs and decision-makers, who flock to LinkedIn to connect, converse and do business.

According to LinkedIn:

More than 80% of B2B leads generated on social media are through LinkedIn.

More than 45% of LinkedIn users are in upper management, such as managers, VPs, directors and C-level executives.

90 million senior-level influencers and 63 million decision-makers use the platform.

If you’ve been trying to figure out how to find and connect with your ideal prospects – the influential decision-makers who can make the deals that will take your business forward – now you know.

They’re on LinkedIn.

LinkedIn offers enormous opportunity for any sales team that implements a fully-integrated social selling strategy.

The advantage that LinkedIn has over other social platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, is that it is a professional platform with a high-quality audience actively looking to network, engage and discuss business.

You can use the platform to engage with your ideal prospects in a direct way that is helpful to them, demonstrating your expertise, building your authority and nurturing key relationships.

The old ways of selling relied on a shotgun approach: blast your offer as far and wide as possible and hope to land a few hits.

Thanks to LinkedIn and its advanced search options, you can find people who fit your ideal client criteria perfectly. Now, you can take a sniper’s approach, strategically targeting, connecting and nurturing relationships with exactly whom you want.

Additional Reading: What Sales Leaders Need to Know About Social Selling

Adapt or die… Cautionary tales from companies who stood still

It doesn’t matter what industry you’re in, if you stand still, your business will get overtaken.

Sales teams still employing traditional sales methods will find it harder and harder to hit their numbers because the demands of the modern buyer, and the sales journey in general, have changed.

Companies who have been quick to adapt to these changing conditions and integrate social selling in their strategies are reaping the rewards.

Those who haven’t adapted are quickly losing their market share.

Let’s take a look at a few examples of once-dominant companies who were slow to adapt to technological change and the wants and needs of their markets.

Blockbuster Video

In 2000, Blockbuster Video was the biggest video rental company in the world, boasting 9,094 stores and 84,300 employees.

Today, it has one store left in Bend, Oregon.

Blockbuster’s demise can be put down to one thing – digital disruption.

As technology allowed people to download or stream movies at the click of a button, the market’s expectations changed. Now speed, wider choice and convenience ruled, and driving to the video store on a Friday night was not the ritual it once was.

Blockbuster was too slow to address the needs of its market, and a competitor, Netflix, stepped in to fill the void. Today, Netflix has 158 million global subscribers and a market value of $184 billion.

Although Netflix and Blockbuster essentially did the same thing – they sold movies to people – only one delivered the product the way its evolved customers wanted it. The other went extinct.

RIM (Research In Motion)

In the first decade of the 2000s, there was one phone brand that was loved by business people, celebrities and regular folk alike.

The BlackBerry was king thanks to its physical keyboard, web and email capabilities and rock-solid security. There was a time when being asked for your BBM (Blackberry Messaging) pin was as common as being asked for your phone number.

But RIM failed to move with the times in a spectacular fashion.

Enter the iPhone and its touchscreen capabilities, which turned the smartphone market on its head.

Now it was clear what the market wanted – big, glossy touchscreen smartphones and the ability to pick and choose the apps you loved to make your user experience a fast and fun one.

Apple and all other Android phone makers understood this.

RIM did not. It remained welded to its physical keyboard and robust but restrictive operating system.

The market voted with its wallets, and the Blackberry’s time as the only phone to own was done.

Kodak

Kodak was the dominant force in the photographic film market for much of the 20th century. Cameras, film, photograph development – its end-to-end business model looked impenetrable.

Until the digital camera (later the camera phone) revolutionized the industry.

Ironically, the company had the chance to lead the digital photography revolution, but instead it chose to protect what it had rather than innovate, disrupt and cement its longevity.

A Kodak engineer Steve Sasson invented the first digital camera back in 1975, but he was promptly told by his bosses to halt the project and not tell anyone about it. Kodak failed to see digital photography as a disruptive technology that would allow it to get ahead of its competition.

A former vice-president of Kodak Don Strickland said: “We developed the world’s first consumer digital camera but we could not get approval to launch or sell it because of fear of the effects on the film market.”

Kodak filed for bankruptcy in 2012.

Now consider these two companies who knew they had to evolve and adopt a modern selling strategy to stay ahead of the competition…

IBM: The company saw a 400% increase in sales after it invested in social selling training for its team. It relied heavily on personalized corporate content, social accounts and employee advocacy to achieve this result.

SAP: This German software company says social selling drove a 32% increase in revenue, and sales staff were 10% more likely to achieve quota. LinkedIn Sales Navigator was the nerve center of its social selling program, giving sales reps a simple way to research and engage with prospects and customers. SAP cites a shift in sales mantra, with a new emphasis on guiding and supporting prospects, as opposed to a hard sell approach.

When it comes to their current sales and marketing strategies, many businesses today face a fork-in-the-road moment.

They can stick with what feels comfortable and familiar but slide into irrelevance.

Or they can take decisive action, embrace the new way of selling and reap the rewards.

If you would like to learn how your company can compete and excel by adopting a modern selling strategy, we would be happy to talk with you. Click here to schedule a call.

The post Modern Selling Strategy: Act Now or Become Irrelevant appeared first on Top Dog Social Media.

Modern Selling Strategy: Act Now or Become Irrelevant published first on https://likesandfollowersclub.wordpress.com

[mariatramp56-blog]

Seeing green: Why some real estate players think cannabis could be the next big thing

(Illustration by Brian Stauffer)

Churchill Real Estate Holdings’ Justin Ehrlich made a name for himself as a New York developer snapping up distressed Downtown buildings during the financial crisis and turning them into luxury condos.

But lately, his focus has been on another high-growth business: cannabis.

In addition to his property dealings, Ehrlich is a partner in Loudpack, an umbrella company of brands that sells a popular line of vaporizers, among other  products. He’s also a partner in Greenwolf LA — a recreational marijuana shop in West Hollywood described as “the Whole Foods of dispensaries” — and has a stake in the ne plus ultra of stoner culture: High Times magazine.

While the burgeoning cannabis business may seem contrary to New York real estate, Ehrlich said the two have more in common than one might think.

“It’s the same philosophy as when we were buying up distressed properties,” he said, referring back to the recession. “There was a lot of fear in the market, and we knew whoever had cash on hand was going to clean up. It’s the same thing we’re doing now [with cannabis products]. A lot of people don’t want to touch it because it’s very risky and it’s a lot of work.”

Ehrlich is one of several real estate players looking to get in on the ground floor of an industry with a vertical growth trajectory.

As states around the country loosen restrictions on marijuana for medicinal and recreational uses, there’s a growing class of investors clamoring for a piece of what the cannabis research firm Arcview projects to be a $57 billion industry worldwide by 2027. New York, Illinois and Florida are among the states now looking to legalize marijuana for recreational use, and doing so would not only give them a major tax revenue boost — it could also pump billions of dollars into real estate leasing, sales and financing deals.

And a number of property investors are looking to capitalize on the increasing need for cannabis-friendly commercial space by launching specialized funds and real estate investment trusts. To date, there are around 10 REITs and private funds exclusively focused on the marijuana industry.

“The investor class in cannabis is similar to any other investment today,” said Adam Levin, whose private equity firm Oreva Capital bought a majority stake in High Times in 2017. The magazine’s owners are now pushing for an initial public offering at a valuation of about $225 million. “People who invest in real estate,” Levin added, “there’s just all this overlap because of the opportunities cannabis investments present today.”

The roster of big-time players in the sector is also growing.

Money managers BlackRock and the Vanguard Group are the biggest investors in Innovative Industrial Properties, the top-performing cannabis REIT. We Company CEO Adam Neumann is an investor in an Israeli medical marijuana company. Magnum Real Estate Group principals Ben Shaoul and Marc Ravner are partners in Ehrlich’s growing cannabis empire. And the blue-blooded Durst family even teamed up with the Greater New York Hospital Association in 2015 in a bid for one of the state’s first medical growing licenses— though the duo lost out to five other ventures including Columbia Care, which now runs a dispensary in the East Village.

“We were interested in that because we have one of New York’s largest organic farms,” the Durst Organization’s spokesperson, Jordan Barowitz, told The Real Deal. “As a real estate company, we are familiar with highly regulated industries.”

Into the weed

In total, 33 states have now legalized medical use, while 10 states (plus Washington, D.C.) have made recreational use legal. These early adopters have handed New York, Illinois, Florida and others a roadmap for what worked and what went wrong.

But the latest states are far behind places like California, Colorado and Nevada, where recreational use is already legal and the cannabis industry is in growth mode, sources say.

“I think Nevada has probably done it best,” said Michelle Bodner of the medical marijuana company Curaleaf New York, which holds one of just 10 medical licenses in the Empire State. “They started their adult-use program very slowly and were very cognizant of oversupply problems.”

New York, meanwhile, has shelved plans to legalize recreational use in its latest state budget, and New Jersey lawmakers recently voted down a similar proposal.

How the U.S. cannabis market and cottage industries around it evolve largely depends on federal and state regulations. Too many restraints could stifle a potentially booming industry, while sweeping legalization could fuel an investor frenzy across state borders, pushing out local players, experts say. For now, as long as federal laws prohibit the cultivation or sale of marijuana, it’s a divided market.

“This is generating revenue for the states, and [state governments] may be covetous of that revenue,” said John Massocca, a stock analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann Financial who covers Innovative Industrial.

Marc Spector, principal of the New York design firm Spector Group, which works with cannabis clients, said those heavily invested in the business are eager for federal changes that would allow money to flow across state lines. “Right now, on a state-by-state basis, you are siloed with what you can do,” he said. “A growing company can’t use resources from Colorado to expand into New York.”

And while real estate is essential to the marijuana industry, there are huge barriers to entry. On top of federal restrictions, the business still conjures up images of smoke-filled dorm rooms and streetcorner drug deals for some. Many banks and other large corporations won’t go near it. The same goes for most of the big commercial brokerages, at least publicly, sources say. CBRE, JLL and Cushman & Wakefield, for example, have published only a handful of detailed reports on cannabis and real estate. At the same time, property owners are still working out the legal kinks of renting space to tenants that create or sell marijuana products.

New York attorney Jerry Goldman, co-chair of Anderson Kill’s regulated products practice, said that while landlords have been charging less of a premium on rents for dispensaries as legalization becomes more mainstream, the costs are still generally higher than in leases for other businesses. That’s largely due to uncertainty over how federal marijuana laws will be enforced on the local level, he noted.

Goldman referred to the federal “crack house” law — which makes it a felony to knowingly lease space for the manufacturing or distribution of any controlled substance — as a deterrent to leasing space to cannabis companies.

“That risk does exist until federal law changes,” he said.

High rates

Matthew Schweber, an attorney at Feuerstein Kulick who represents dispensaries, manufacturers and other marijuana companies, called it the “cannabis premium.” Schweber said he’s representing a client who was awarded a license in West Hollywood and, for those reasons, will likely pay double the rent a noncannabis company would. “It is a legal concern,” he said, noting that landlords “will say there’s the risk of foreclosure.”

If an individual or company has a mortgage on a property and leases it to a cannabis producer, that landlord is violating a clause of the mortgage, which means the bank could demand full repayment of its loan at any moment, Schweber added. The clauses stem from federal lending guidelines, and in some cases, companies in the marijuana industry need to pay all cash to buy property for growing and distribution.

That’s left a huge void when it comes to financing for cannabis companies looking to lease or build out space, one that specialized REITs and private funds are stepping in to fill. Many of these new entrants buy properties, pay off the mortgages and then lease back to the operators, knowing they can get two or three times the typical rent in that area.

But the higher rates most of them charge — 150 to 200 percent in some cases — make it hard for smaller firms to break into the cannabis business, sources say. And that’s creating an uneven playing field in the industry.

“It’s very difficult for any company other than, say, a large multistate operator to be able to afford the cost of operating,” Schweber said, “because the real estate is as critical to their welfare as any other component of their business.”

That landscape is further kept in check by a limited number of licenses per state, which caps the number of competitive players — even in big recreational markets like Los Angeles and Denver.

In L.A., landlords still have “all the leverage in the world” over would-be tenants, said Ali Mourad, a broker at Sperry Commercial who’s worked with both cannabis tenants and landlords.

The city is expected to allow another 200 licenses over the next few years, but the process can be complicated and expensive, Mourad said. Cannabis companies have to secure a lease before they can get a license, which makes it even harder for property owners to commit to lease agreements.

“It’s still really complicated, and that’s caused confusion on the landlord side,” Mourad said. “And there’s still a stigma there. Then you have zoning restrictions, so operators are really limited to where they can go.”

Limited supply

Where there’s resistance, however, there’s also opportunity, as shown by the investors and lenders that have pounced on the burgeoning business.

The publicly traded Canadian cannabis firm Harvest Health & Recreation partnered with two family offices late last year to form a $100 million real estate fund called Aina We Would, for example. Harvest, which spun off its property holdings, will finance acquisitions and new construction projects while pursuing its own investments through the fund, including land purchases and sale-and-leaseback deals.

Aina We Would lends to other companies at an interest rate of about 12 percent, which accounts for the legal risks it takes on, said Harvest Health President Steve Gutterman. He argued that it’s a good price, citing a going rate closer to 16 percent.

A number of similar funds and REITs have cropped up in California.

Inception Companies, a private investment firm based in Beverly Hills, launched a $50 million cannabis REIT last August. Inception is also focusing on leaseback deals with marijuana companies. And the popular L.A.-based retailer MedMen Enterprises partnered with the family office Stable Road Capital in January to form a cannabis REIT called Treehouse. Similar to Harvest, Medmen spun off its real estate assets in a deal valued at about $100 million, financed in part by Treehouse’s first capital raise of $133 million.

While there are several risks to investing in cannabis-related property, the financial upsides can be significant.

San Diego-based Innovative Industrial, which specializes in medical-use marijuana farms, was the country’s best-performing REIT in 2018, netting investors a 117 percent profit — beating out Vornado Realty Trust, SL Green and other large traditional real estate players.

Massocca of Ladenburg Thalmann said companies focused on triple-net lease deals pay cap rates in the single digits for less desirable real estate, like properties leased to tenants with bad credit. Innovative Industrial, on the other hand, is investing at cap rates in the low to mid teens, which means there’s plenty of room for it to improve a property’s fundamentals, he noted. The REIT’s performance “has risen dramatically” in the past few months, Massocca added.

At the same time, the field of financiers in the pot and real estate arena is still narrow, said Dan Leimel, CEO of the private real estate investment firm Pelorus Equity Group. The company, based in Newport Beach, California, launched its own $100 million debt and equity fund targeting cannabis-related real estate in September.

“It’s not a robust market in a sense that there’s a lot of players,” Leimel said. “Is it robust for those of us in it? Yeah.”

MedMen’s dispensary storefront at Ashkenazy Acquisition’s 433 Fifth Avenue

Jason Thomas, founder of the Denver-based cannabis real estate brokerage Avalon Realty Advisors, said there were “less than 10 large-cap” players, but estimated there were several hundred smaller investors with somewhere between $3 million and $5 million to deploy. Many are one-off investors working in local markets, he said.

But as more states legalize, REITs and private funds are jockeying to establish themselves in those markets. And the industry could be in for a major shift if the federal government lifts financing restrictions and institutional lenders flood the market.

The New York Times reported last month that nearly all of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates favor legalization and have framed it as a racial justice issue, since nonwhite offenders are disproportionality imprisoned over marijuana offenses. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has sent mixed signals on the issue but has said that he would back a bill protecting cannabis businesses with state licenses, the paper reported.

Leimel said increased competition pushes him to sharpen his business model. He argued that his firm will thrive on value-add deals, especially in cases where banks may only lend a portion of what operators need to build out a space or expand operations.

If and when “federal restrictions are lifted, we’re going to beat banks all day on that,” Leimel said.

A tighter lid

MedMen opened its first Manhattan dispensary last year — a sleek storefront at Ashkenazy Acquisition’s 433 Fifth Avenue that’s been compared to an Apple store.

Zeeshan Hyder, MedMen’s chief corporate development officer, said the posh location was very intentional. “Our retail strategy includes being a first mover in attractive consumer markets,” he told TRD by email, noting that the Fifth Avenue lease deal “is an extension of the playbook we’ve executed on in California.”

Hyder cited the regulatory and legal environment, including zoning laws, as the biggest challenge his company faces in New York.

And those invested in the cannabis industry in New York could face even more hurdles if the state legalizes recreational use. Curaleaf’s Bodner said that when it comes to selling marijuana even for medical use, “New York is the most highly regulated state in the country.”

New York’s limited number of licenses allow those companies to operate a total of 40 medical dispensaries in the state of nearly 20 million residents, Bodner noted.

Florida, by comparison, has seven times the number of dispensaries per capita, while California authorities have issued over 10,000 commercial cannabis licenses to businesses in the state and has 49 active medical licenses.

New York City could be further hampered by density issues. Of the 10 companies licensed to grow and dispense marijuana in the state in 2019, for example, none are growing in the five boroughs. The closest ones are more than an hour north of the city in Orange County, and one operation grows in Monroe County near Lake Ontario.

But while the number of dispensaries in New York remains capped, that’s led to better quality control. “We have the best product in the country,” Bodner said about the consistency of the state’s medical marijuana — including its potency.

“You look around at other states where licenses have been issued to people who perhaps don’t have the background of professional growers, and the market becomes flooded and prices implode,” she added. “Things go to the black market.”

It remains to be seen how and when New York lawmakers will address legalization for recreational use. For months, it looked as though Albany would deal with legalization in the state budget process, wrapping on April 1. But in late March, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the prospect of getting legalization done through the budget process was unlikely, signaling that it may get picked up later this year in the legislative session.

By comparison, in the two years after Colorado legalized pot for recreational use, grow house leases in metro Denver rose two to three times higher than average warehouse rents in top cultivation submarkets, according to CBRE. And industrial buildings occupied by cannabis companies in that market saw their sales prices rise more than 17 percent between 2014 and 2017, from $98 to $115 per square foot.

Denver’s City Council did not cap dispensaries and grow operations until April 2016, which slowed what was until then strong demand for space and likely tempered rent growth, sources say.

In California, which legalized recreational marijuana just last year, the values of state-compliant properties in the Los Angeles area have risen by as much as 50 percent, Pelorus’ Leimel said. That growth has been strongest with industrial buildings in blighted desert areas in northern L.A. County, he noted. Property values increase not only due to the higher rents, but also because some cannabis companies are investing millions to accommodate large-scale growth operations.

“These are high-tech spaces,” Leimel said. “Some of them look like hospitals.”

Similar strains

The picture in Illinois is similar to New York, with most of the growth operations taking place far outside the city.

Tim McGraw, CEO of the California-based development and property management firm Canna-Hub, said that on top of the high costs in both markets, “there’s typically more bureaucracy in a big city.”

“Why would you want to deal with it?” he asked.

Still, some investors are ready to dive head first into New York.

Leimel said his fund has been closely tracking the state’s cannabis market and political environment — and he suspects others are doing the same.

If New York legalizes recreational use, many think the landscape will look a lot different than it does on the West Coast. Avalon’s Thomas said the volume of licensing will play a big part in how real estate is impacted.

“A state that has a shallow pool of licenses that will likely go to the most qualified applicants is not going to perpetuate a massive green rush for properties,” he noted, “because maybe we’re talking about a dozen stores and the same amount of cultivation locations.”

Brian Staffa, founder of the New Jersey cannabis consulting firm BSC Group, said East Coast states have kept a tighter cap on licenses overall.

How and where a state distributes its licenses is also important, he added. A state like New York would be wise to allow more cultivation licenses in rural areas and more retail locations in the city, Staffa said. That could revitalize areas with obsolete and disused industrial space.

But he cautioned that there may be just a few winners in New York real estate when all is said and done. Staffa said it’s important that developers and property owners carefully analyze demand before building too big.

“Mistake No. 1 is misreading the potential market to drive project size,” he said, noting that some developers in legal states “have built out at such a scale in markets that couldn’t support it and they just bled and bled.”

—Additional reporting by Eddie Small in New York and Joe Ward in Chicago

Source: https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/marijuana-real-estate/

[thisdaynews]

Infrastructure Week dies — again

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/infrastructure-week-dies-again/

Infrastructure Week dies — again

A man works on Interstate 11 near Boulder City, Nevada, in May 2017. Hopes for new funding for roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railroads have dried up. | John Locher/AP Photo

transportation

‘There wasn’t going to be a $2 trillion deal anyway,’ Republican Rep. Sam Graves said.

So much for Infrastructure Week.

Hopes for a grand $2 trillion infrastructure deal were rapidly vanishing even before Wednesday’s White House meeting between President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats blew up in a cloud of recriminations.

Story Continued Below

One big reason: Neither party has offered a serious way to pay for one.

Not Trump, who put out a $1.5 billion proposal 15 months ago that would have laid the burden on states, cities, private investors and politically unpalatable federal budget cuts. But also not the Democratic leaders, whose 35-page plan from a year ago would rely on reversing Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy — a non-starter for the GOP.

Meanwhile, prospects House lawmakers would meet even their own target of getting an infrastructure bill onto the floor before the August recess — the unofficial deadline for achieving serious legislation before the 2020 election season consumes the Capitol — have been fading fast.

Wednesday was far from the first time one of Trump’s planned infrastructure milestones has veered off the rails. Infrastructure was, after all, the intended topic of the August 2017 news conference at which the president defended the “very fine people on both sides” of that weekend’s deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.

But to infrastructure advocates, Wednesday’s aborted meeting was yet another letdown for hopes of a bigger federal investment in roads, bridges, tunnels, railroads and airports — not to mention schools, water supplies, broadband networks, veterans’ hospitals and all the other needs that lawmakers of both parties have mentioned among their priorities.

“Sadly, it appears political theatrics won the day,” Dave Bauer, CEO of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, said in a statement. He urged Congress to continue to work “on the big and bold transportation infrastructure investment package that the U.S. economy, motorists and business community deserve.”

Each side quickly cast blame Wednesday, with Democrats accusing Trump of blowing up the meeting because he had no real plan to discuss.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) opened a House Transportation Committee hearing later Wednesday by accusing Trump of showing “that apparently he’s not very serious” about infrastructure — “unless Congress ignores its constitutional responsibility to carry out oversight of the administration.”

“If the president wants to hold good-paying jobs hostage, that’s his choice, but it certainly isn’t mine,” she said.

Trump said Democrats have foiled infrastructure’s chances by pursuing what he has called an “illegal witch hunt” investigation into his business dealings and 2016 campaign. Missouri Rep. Sam Graves, the transportation committee’s top Republican, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi had instigated the confrontation when she accused Trump earlier in the day of engaging in a “cover-up.”

“I don’t really blame the president for what he did given what she said this morning,” Graves told POLITICO. “She’s throwing out outrageous allegations and then turns around and tries to play nice.”

The idea of a grand infrastructure bargain faced daunting odds anyway, even though infrastructure has repeatedly surfaced as a top Trump talking point since the eve of his presidential campaign.

“The only one to fix the infrastructure of our country is me — roads, airports, bridges,” Trump tweeted in May 2015, a month before launching his White House run. “I know how to build, pols only know how to talk!”

He proposed a $500 billion-plus cash infusion during his campaign, highlighted his infrastructure pledge during his victory speech in November 2016, and put out a $1.5 trillion blueprint in early 2018 that would have included $200 billion in new federal money, offset by cuts to existing spending.

But the White House plan never went anywhere in Congress, which then was controlled entirely by Republicans. Current and former Trump advisers have since spread the word that he never much liked the plan and might be open to a much bigger federal investment — the kind of plan Democrats could accept.

His late April meeting with Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer briefly raised hopes — at least in public — that the two sides could come together on a $2 trillion plan. But the White House quickly moved to reassure conservatives that the most obvious way of paying for an infrastructure boost was off the table: Trump was not planning to hike the federal gasoline tax, despite telling Bloomberg two years ago that “it’s something that I would certainly consider.”

Democratic leaders weren’t rushing to fill the void either, making it clear they expected Trump to offer a funding proposal before they would take the political risk of endorsing one. Instead, Pelosi said at a news conference Wednesday, “He just took a pass.”

Still, Democrats have had a long time to advance their own big-sky proposals and have little to show for it so far. Senate Democrats’ $1 trillion proposal from March 2018 has yet to receive even a committee markup in the Republican-controlled chamber, for example.

A few lawmakers have come out in favor of a gas tax hike, including House Transportation Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), while Senate Commerce Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) has said he’d be willing to consider one if Trump was publicly on board. But their parties’ leaders have yet to endorse the idea — and neither did former President Barack Obama, whose own infrastructure proposals included funding sources such as the savings from winding down wars and rhetoric about “working with Congress” on unspecified methods.

Congress is still free to pursue smaller-bore infrastructure packages, however — and Democrats said Wednesday that they plan to work with Republicans on pursuing those. For instance, DeFazio and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said they will continue to work on a successor to the five-year, $305 billion highway and transit law that expires at the end of September 2020.

“While we go through this — I don’t know what to call it, this thing with the president and Nancy and Chuck — the serious work that needs to be done is being done,” Carper said.

Such a bill — the kind Congress passes every few years — wouldn’t match the rhetoric of Trump’s campaign proposals, which called for a “bold, visionary plan. … in the proud tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.” But it would represent some progress.

Graves, the Missouri Republican, said he is on board with the traditional approach as well.

“That charade that Schumer and Pelosi are playing is one thing, but Peter [DeFazio] and I are going to continue to work on this,” Graves said. “There wasn’t going to be a $2 trillion deal anyway.”

Read More

[endenogatai]

Lyvly scores $4.6M for its members-based shared living and rental platform

Lyvly, a London-based startup that offers what might best be described as a members-based shared living and rental service, has raised $4.6 million in Series A funding. Leading the round is Mosaic Ventures, while Greg Marsh, who co-founded Onefinestay, has joined the burgeoning company as Chairman and investor.

The latest take on how to improve the experience for ‘generation rent’ in sprawling cities like London, Lyvly is at its most basic a two-sided marketplace that helps renters find high quality shared living accommodation and landlords find good tenants. However, it goes far beyond simply matching supply and demand for house shares.

Not only are properties fully managed — including providing tenant services such as managing household bills, replacing consumables and cleaning — but at the heart of it all is the Lyvly community platform, which treats Lyvly renters as members within a network of “like-minded individuals who share a passion for shared living”. And, as wishy-washy as that sounds, there is no doubt that city living is often devoid of community, and in London especially it can be difficult to meet new people.

“Renting is often not a pleasant experience, and living in cities can be lonely and stressful,” says co-founder and CEO Philip Laney. “Moving into your new apartment, sorting out furniture and utilities, and then trying to connect with busy people around you all whilst working long hours in a transient economy are frustrations many of us have experienced. We are confronting three problems for renters in the city: their desire for community, convenience and affordability”.

Laney says the current way people rent shared accommodation is also painful for landlords, who don’t have consistency and control over the quality of their tenants, and often pay high fees to a middle person and struggle with vacancy rates. “We provide them guaranteed income with no voids and no fees, and a genuinely positive social impact,” he says.

For renters, Lyvly operates a little like a members club. Once you’ve applied to join the community, you have a call with a member of the Lyvly team to learn more about your “life stage and values”. “We are people, not property first. So we establish what you’re seeking from your Lyvly move and whether you are keen to actively participate in the Lyvly community and share your life, not just spaces,” says Laney.

Next, you are given profiles of the members (and prospective housemates) you will be meeting with, and they are sent your profile and an overview as to why you are well matched. You then meet each other, and if you like each other, you can apply online to the membership committee, which is made up of the most active Lyvly members and the team. This includes submitting your bio and stating why you want to be part of Lyvly, and what you would bring to the community.

Adds Laney: “Once you’re in, we then guide you through the whole moving process, taking care of everything and removing any usual stresses that come from moving to a new place in London. You are introduced to other members in the area who have similar interests and values and other members reach out to you directly to invite you to other activities they’re hosting. We also regularly host events and actively support members to engage with each other and give value to the community”.

Lyvly’s target tenants are 25-35 year olds who are looking for single occupancy. Laney says that’s because they are at similar life stages to each other and this is where the startup can make a meaningful difference. “We really care about being something to someone, rather than everything to no one. In time however, we will be able to expand Lyvly into different community groups,” he says.

Landlords using the platform range from individuals who are first time owners to some of London’s biggest property companies.

Asked who Lyvly competes with, he cites the grey and black economy of shared housing and “dodgy landlords”. Technically the company is also competing with estate agents, although it is open to working with them to help find better tenants for their landlords.

Meanwhile, don’t confuse the startup for co-living, build-to-rent developers who “put property first” and aim to profit from the development of assets. In contrast, Lyvly makes money from the managed services it provides and is not developing new property but renting out existing housing stock.

“We believe people like living in existing houses and apartments and what we need to do is create a community around that. It’s not the configuration of the spaces that need changing, but how people interact inside and outside of them,” says Laney, adding that the use of existing housing infrastructure also means that Lyvly is potentially a lot more scalable.

Along with Laney, the startup’s other co-founders are Dario Favoino and Siraj Khaliq. Both Laney Favoino have a 10 year background in real estate investment and property management at Deutsche Bank and Realstar. And in case you aren’t keeping up, Khaliq is a Partner at London VC firm Atomico and was previously CTO and co-founder of Silicon Valley startup Climate Corporation, which exited in 2013 for over $1.1 billion.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/2KHHhVv via IFTTT

[theinvinciblenoob]

Lyvly, a London-based startup that offers what might best be described as a members-based shared living and rental service, has raised $4.6 million in Series A funding. Leading the round is Mosaic Ventures, while Greg Marsh, who co-founded Onefinestay, has joined the burgeoning company as chairman and investor.

The latest take on how to improve the experience for “generation rent” in sprawling cities like London, Lyvly is at its most basic a two-sided marketplace that helps renters find high-quality shared living accommodations and landlords find good tenants. However, it goes far beyond simply matching supply and demand for house shares.

Not only are properties fully managed — including providing tenant services such as managing household bills, replacing consumables and cleaning — but at the heart of it all is the Lyvly community platform, which treats Lyvly renters as members within a network of “like-minded individuals who share a passion for shared living.” And, as wishy-washy as that sounds, there is no doubt that city living is often devoid of community, and in London especially it can be difficult to meet new people.

“Renting is often not a pleasant experience, and living in cities can be lonely and stressful,” says co-founder and CEO Philip Laney. “Moving into your new apartment, sorting out furniture and utilities, and then trying to connect with busy people around you all whilst working long hours in a transient economy are frustrations many of us have experienced. We are confronting three problems for renters in the city: their desire for community, convenience and affordability.”

Laney says the current way people rent shared accommodations is also painful for landlords, who don’t have consistency and control over the quality of their tenants, and often pay high fees to a middle-person and struggle with vacancy rates. “We provide them guaranteed income with no voids and no fees, and a genuinely positive social impact,” he says.

For renters, Lyvly operates a little like a members club. Once you’ve applied to join the community, you have a call with a member of the Lyvly team to learn more about your “life stage and values.” “We are people, not property first. So we establish what you’re seeking from your Lyvly move and whether you are keen to actively participate in the Lyvly community and share your life, not just spaces,” says Laney.

Next, you are given profiles of the members (and prospective housemates) you will be meeting with, and they are sent your profile and an overview as to why you are well-matched. You then meet each other, and if you like each other, you can apply online to the membership committee, which is made up of the most active Lyvly members and the team. This includes submitting your bio and stating why you want to be part of Lyvly, and what you would bring to the community.

Adds Laney: “Once you’re in, we then guide you through the whole moving process, taking care of everything and removing any usual stresses that come from moving to a new place in London. You are introduced to other members in the area who have similar interests and values and other members reach out to you directly to invite you to other activities they’re hosting. We also regularly host events and actively support members to engage with each other and give value to the community.”

Lyvly’s target tenants are 25-35-year-olds who are looking for single occupancy. Laney says that’s because they are at similar life stages to each other and this is where the startup can make a meaningful difference. “We really care about being something to someone, rather than everything to no one. In time however, we will be able to expand Lyvly into different community groups,” he says.

Landlords using the platform range from individuals who are first-time owners to some of London’s biggest property companies.

Asked who Lyvly competes with, he cites the grey and black economy of shared housing and “dodgy landlords.” Technically the company is also competing with estate agents, although it is open to working with them to help find better tenants for their landlords.

Meanwhile, don’t confuse the startup for co-living, build-to-rent developers who “put property first” and aim to profit from the development of assets. In contrast, Lyvly makes money from the managed services it provides and is not developing new property but renting out existing housing stock.

“We believe people like living in existing houses and apartments and what we need to do is create a community around that. It’s not the configuration of the spaces that need changing, but how people interact inside and outside of them,” says Laney, adding that the use of existing housing infrastructure also means that Lyvly is potentially a lot more scalable.

Along with Laney, the startup’s other co-founders are Dario Favoino and Siraj Khaliq. Both Laney and Favoino have a 10-year background in real estate investment and property management at Deutsche Bank and Realstar. And in case you aren’t keeping up, Khaliq is a partner at London VC firm Atomico and was previously CTO and co-founder of Silicon Valley startup Climate Corporation, which exited in 2013 for more than $1.1 billion.

via TechCrunch

[fmservers]

Lyvly scores $4.6M for its members-based shared living and rental platform

Lyvly, a London-based startup that offers what might best be described as a members-based shared living and rental service, has raised $4.6 million in Series A funding. Leading the round is Mosaic Ventures, while Greg Marsh, who co-founded Onefinestay, has joined the burgeoning company as Chairman and investor.

The latest take on how to improve the experience for ‘generation rent’ in sprawling cities like London, Lyvly is at its most basic a two-sided marketplace that helps renters find high quality shared living accommodation and landlords find good tenants. However, it goes far beyond simply matching supply and demand for house shares.

Not only are properties fully managed — including providing tenant services such as managing household bills, replacing consumables and cleaning — but at the heart of it all is the Lyvly community platform, which treats Lyvly renters as members within a network of “like-minded individuals who share a passion for shared living”. And, as wishy-washy as that sounds, there is no doubt that city living is often devoid of community, and in London especially it can be difficult to meet new people.

“Renting is often not a pleasant experience, and living in cities can be lonely and stressful,” says co-founder and CEO Philip Laney. “Moving into your new apartment, sorting out furniture and utilities, and then trying to connect with busy people around you all whilst working long hours in a transient economy are frustrations many of us have experienced. We are confronting three problems for renters in the city: their desire for community, convenience and affordability”.

Laney says the current way people rent shared accommodation is also painful for landlords, who don’t have consistency and control over the quality of their tenants, and often pay high fees to a middle person and struggle with vacancy rates. “We provide them guaranteed income with no voids and no fees, and a genuinely positive social impact,” he says.

For renters, Lyvly operates a little like a members club. Once you’ve applied to join the community, you have a call with a member of the Lyvly team to learn more about your “life stage and values”. “We are people, not property first. So we establish what you’re seeking from your Lyvly move and whether you are keen to actively participate in the Lyvly community and share your life, not just spaces,” says Laney.

Next, you are given profiles of the members (and prospective housemates) you will be meeting with, and they are sent your profile and an overview as to why you are well matched. You then meet each other, and if you like each other, you can apply online to the membership committee, which is made up of the most active Lyvly members and the team. This includes submitting your bio and stating why you want to be part of Lyvly, and what you would bring to the community.

Adds Laney: “Once you’re in, we then guide you through the whole moving process, taking care of everything and removing any usual stresses that come from moving to a new place in London. You are introduced to other members in the area who have similar interests and values and other members reach out to you directly to invite you to other activities they’re hosting. We also regularly host events and actively support members to engage with each other and give value to the community”.

Lyvly’s target tenants are 25-35 year olds who are looking for single occupancy. Laney says that’s because they are at similar life stages to each other and this is where the startup can make a meaningful difference. “We really care about being something to someone, rather than everything to no one. In time however, we will be able to expand Lyvly into different community groups,” he says.

Landlords using the platform range from individuals who are first time owners to some of London’s biggest property companies.

Asked who Lyvly competes with, he cites the grey and black economy of shared housing and “dodgy landlords”. Technically the company is also competing with estate agents, although it is open to working with them to help find better tenants for their landlords.

Meanwhile, don’t confuse the startup for co-living, build-to-rent developers who “put property first” and aim to profit from the development of assets. In contrast, Lyvly makes money from the managed services it provides and is not developing new property but renting out existing housing stock.

“We believe people like living in existing houses and apartments and what we need to do is create a community around that. It’s not the configuration of the spaces that need changing, but how people interact inside and outside of them,” says Laney, adding that the use of existing housing infrastructure also means that Lyvly is potentially a lot more scalable.

Along with Laney, the startup’s other co-founders are Dario Favoino and Siraj Khaliq. Both Laney Favoino have a 10 year background in real estate investment and property management at Deutsche Bank and Realstar. And in case you aren’t keeping up, Khaliq is a Partner at London VC firm Atomico and was previously CTO and co-founder of Silicon Valley startup Climate Corporation, which exited in 2013 for over $1.1 billion.

Via Steve O'Hear https://techcrunch.com