Sam Liebman, Founder of WealthWay Equity Group, has witnessed the drastic changes one election can have on an entire real estate market. In this episode, Sam shares his decades of experience navigating politically changing markets and his strategies for adapting to these shifts to keep business thriving.
Sam Liebman | Real Estate Background
- Founder and Managing Member of WealthWay Equity Group, a privately held real estate investment company that primarily focuses on syndication.
- Portfolio: GP of over 30 properties in New York and Texas with approximately 1,800 units.
- Author of Harvard Can’t Teach What You Learn from the Streets
- Based in: NYC, NY
- Say hi to him at:
- samliebman.com
- YouTube: Sam Liebman “Street Success”
- Best Ever Book: The E-Myth by Michael E. Gerber
Click here to know more about our sponsors:
.png?width=300&name=Deal-Maker-Mentoring-Logo-300x300%20(1).png){kind=logo}
.png?width=300&name=PassiveInvesting.com-1-300x167%20(1).png)
.png?width=300&name=Screen_Shot_2016-09-16_at_12.52.43_PM-300x97%20(1).png)
TRANSCRIPTION
Slocomb Reed: Best Ever listeners, welcome to The Best Real Estate Investing Advice Ever Show. I’m Slocomb Reed and I’m with Sam Liebman. He’s joining us from New York City. He’s the founder of Wealthway Equity Group which focuses on syndications. He has a 30-year career in commercial real estate and his current GP portfolio is over 1800 units and 30 properties in New York and Texas. He’s also the author of a book that was just published in the last month, in January of 2022, titled Harvard Can’t Teach What You Learn From The Streets. Sam, can you start us off with a little bit more about your background and what you’re currently focused on?
Sam Liebman: Yeah. First of all, thank you for having me, it’s a pleasure. I was a kid from Canarsie, Brooklyn; I came from a very poor family, dysfunctional family, and I just kept fighting, fighting, fighting. We call Canarsie the mafia minor leagues, because every [unintelligible [00:04:16].03] seems to be connected. But when you grow up on the streets, you learn certain street smarts, you learn to get your spidey sense tingling, you think out of the box; you have to, it’s survival. And I used those lessons from the street and I combined them with the traditional education to become street smart and know my stuff.
One of the things we did was mastered the fundamentals. Started off as an accountant, a CPA, had a firm for a while. Then when I was doing people’s tax returns, seeing what they made, I felt like everybody’s scorekeeper. They were making millions, I was keeping score. I said, “You know what? I want to be on the other side.”
Slocomb Reed: Every accountant I know tells the same story of how they got into real estate. You have a 30-year career in commercial real estate; how long have you been on the GP side of syndication deals?
Sam Liebman: Well, I started off as a GP. What happened was in 1992 — I had worked as a chief financial officer at Mountain Development Corp at 27, and I got what I call my Harvard education there, because the company started with myself, a secretary, and the owner, Bob Lee. Three years later, we had over 20 million square feet in five different states. So I really got tremendous exposure, which is really important in the learning process. Then through accounting, I had met one of the clients who called me in one day – this was in 1992 – and said, “We want to buy all the banks foreclosures.” That time, you could buy properties for three times rent roll; nobody wanted Manhattan real estate. I said, “Well, guys…”
Slocomb Reed: When was this?
Sam Liebman: This was 1992. Cap rates were going from 9.75% to I think 12%, interest rates were 10%, and I always tell people, the best time to buy real estate is when nobody wants it. The price you pay is a permanent cost; you can’t change that. But if interest rates are high, that’s a variable cost; you can always refinance, you could always pretty much go down, and that’s what we did. Those properties that I bought for $575,000 are now worth $15 million, for a lot of different reasons that we did, and that 9.75% initial interest rate is now 3%. Well, lower. So I said, “Guys, let’s do syndication.” “What’s that?” I said, “Well, instead of buying two buildings with your money, we could buy 10.”
That sounded appealing until they saw the documents. I managed to streamline the documents and we bought our first deal, 110-112 St. Mark’s place, I remember that. September 23, 1993, we closed; it was 22 two-bedroom apartments, 50-footer what we call, and two stores. $575,000. And I remember all we needed at that time was $290,000 in equity, including fix-up. At that time, under nine people, you didn’t need to do a full-blown PPM as long as it was under nine people. So if I got a guy who put in 50,000, now the average went down to 30,000. We had people put in in these buildings at the time $15,000, that and now $500,000 investors, and we bought 40 of those buildings for dirt cheap. We thought we’d fix them up, and we would have cash flow and appreciation. Did we ever think about these prices? No.
Slocomb Reed: So you’re talking about investments that happened 30 years ago, turning 15,000 into 500k. Now, how much of that appreciation do you attribute to the 30-year hold period and how much of it do you attribute to, say, other factors like you purchased a distressed asset and forced appreciation, or you bought in areas where there was – the buzzword now is gentrification of course… You bought in submarkets that have since shifted – how do you factor that appreciation over 30 years?
Sam Liebman: Okay, good question. For New York City, the main thing was the political climate that changed. In 1993, most of the buildings were rent-stabilized or rent-controlled buildings. We were only allowed to increase rents according to the rental guidelines each year, that ranged from 3% to 5%, depending if there was a one-year or two-year lease. Buildings were in horrible shape, because there was no incentive to fix up the building, because the rents were controlled. In 1994, they came out with vacancy decontrol, which was a game-changer.
Initially, what that let you do is if you could get an apartment vacant and the legal rent became $2,000 or more, the apartment became decontrolled. So if you had an apartment that was $1,200 a month and somehow you could get it to $2000, it became decontrolled. Now, what’s the importance of that? Well, they came up with this new technique, and it was basically if you put capital improvements in the apartment, you improve the apartment, you’re able to recoup one fourtieth of the cost, monthly. So if you put $40,000 in basically, you could raise the rent — and the tenant had to be out, the apartment had to be vacant. So for 1000, I put 40,000 in, make it really nice, get it over 2000… Ket’s say I only got 2500. That $1500 for the apartment, when you divide the extra income by the cap rate, it’s a lot more than the $40,000, of course. And by the way, in the city, because everything got better, that $2,500 apartment became worth 4000-5000. So the political climate was a major reason. Also, there were a lot of abuses in there; throwing tenants out. The game was to get an apartment vacant, by any means possible, [unintelligible [00:10:26].03]
This displaced a lot of buildings, but we became multimillionaires, and we did it the right way. There were tenant buyouts, again, using that cap rate formula to increase valuation. Over the years, the cap rates dropped, obviously. Now that was a change in the political climate. What I would tell your listeners now, if they’re looking for buildings, beware of the political climate where you’re investing. For instance, there’s a movement for national rent control, and it is horrible, because Minnesota, Minneapolis just passed, maybe two months ago, universal rent control, limiting new buildings to 3% increases. And they were all crying, “We need more affordable housing.” But what developer is going to sign a $30-$40 million construction loan when insurance is doubling, real estate’s doubling, and operating expenses and construction costs are doubling because of the pandemic, and then they’re going to cap you. So 10 projects immediately stopped, you could look it up.
Slocomb Reed: I want to hear a little bit more about your experience with the changing political climates and markets where you have been buying your properties. I know you have your current portfolio, some of it is in New York and some of it is in Texas… How much did the political climate of each of those states or each of those MSAs play into your decision to invest in those areas?
Sam Liebman: A big part. When we invested in Manhattan, we owned over 40 buildings or so at one time; it was a positive political climate. That has changed dramatically. I will not touch anything in New York City right now. I think I have a couple of buildings left.
Slocomb Reed: Sam, let’s go back to Manhattan. Can you give me a couple more inflection points? You talked about decontrolled vacant units in 1994. Can you give me examples of other political inflection points that drastically changed the commercial real estate landscape for New York City?
Sam Liebman: Sure, there’s a lot of them. Interest rates went down obviously over the last 30 years. The dollar became stronger; we’re talking about now. But over the 30 years, the dollar was weaker, so a lot of foreigners –and there was no virus… A lot of foreigners came into this country because they had cheap dollars. There was also a lot of political… Like the EB-5 program.
Slocomb Reed: What is the EB-5 program?
Sam Liebman: The EB-5 program, I think it was passed during the Obama administration. What that enabled was a foreign person, like Chinese or whatever, to come to the United States and invest, I think it was originally 500,000 and that became a million, and basically get citizenship. All the big companies now are getting all this EB-5 money that was funneled towards these big projects. So it was a way of getting tremendous amounts of foreign investment in this country. In fact, China was the biggest beneficiary. I remember probably about four years ago the quota was filled in January; that’s how popular it was. And there were other popular programs; there’s a lot of popular programs now, from the federal government.
Slocomb Reed: And you’re saying that the popularity of these programs for bringing non-US citizens to the United States is having a big impact on the real estate market in New York City.
Sam Liebman: Yeah, they were bringing in a tremendous amount of capital into the United States.
Slocomb Reed: So just to make sure, our Best Ever listeners and I are on the same page with you here… The influx of capital to the city increases property values, increases rent rates, correct?
Sam Liebman: Well, it increases demand. You bring in the money, you’ve got to do something with it.
Slocomb Reed: Yeah, of course. How long have you been investing in Texas? What about Texas attracted you to the markets where you’re invested there?
Sam Liebman: That’s a great question. I sort of saw what was going on in New York City, a little bit. About 2006 I think it was, somebody convinced me to go to Texas and take a look at what’s going on there. What I saw was tremendous potential. I saw infrastructure being built, schools being built, technology, and also there was a migration from California. I think it was close to, at that time, 200 people a day were moving into Austin. You had the West Campus part of Austin, where the University of Texas is, and you had about a mile away downtown. And it was vibrant, it was entrepreneurial. And they had a master plan in Austin, it was called UNO – University Neighborhood Overlay. That plan really attracted me, because they were very pro real estate. They were rezoning areas, and they wanted capital to come in and build up the city. You had a young workforce, educated workforce. It had everything… Except water. But it had everything. They were building parks in Dallas, they were connecting uptown to downtown. So I saw all this going on, and I just said, “Wow, this is a great place.” And I just liked everything about it.
Slocomb Reed: So you said Austin had a master plan, UNO, and that plan excited you. On a smaller scale, Sam, in the city of Cincinnati, we’ve seen some tremendous revitalization of the urban core, and there were some major players, both governmental and private capital in making that happen. Since then, a lot of other neighborhoods and villages and jurisdictions in the MSA have come up with their own master plans for virtualization, publicized them, and many of them have not come to fruition at all.
When you see master plans like UNO in Austin, and you see potentially emerging markets that are demonstrating an intentionality about being pro real estate, how do you know that these are plans that will actually be acted upon and how do you know that they will actually result in pro commercial real estate growth?
Sam Liebman: That is a great question. The perfect example of that is Atlantic City.
Slocomb Reed: Atlantic City?
Sam Liebman: Right. Atlantic City, all the casinos, all the other things that are built there – Atlantic City failed because the jurisdiction there failed to develop the outer areas. The whole reason people came in was with that promise that they were going to build up the outer areas. It never happened, and that crushed Atlantic City. I’ll give you another area, Trenton, New Jersey. We bought a building there because we were promised — we’d met with the city council people and they were going to build the Mets… Or no, the Yankees had a minor league baseball team they put in; there was a hockey team put in, and they were going to do all these things. New jurisdiction came in, new political people – nothing happened. So you’re 100% right with that, that is a tremendous point. You don’t know, because one election can change everything.
Slocomb Reed: Is it really the elections that determine whether or not these sorts of master plans come to fruition?
Sam Liebman: Sure. Who’s controlling the money?
Break: [00:17:53] – [00:19:50]
Slocomb Reed: Let’s create a hypothetical situation. I’m tracking some emerging markets, let’s say, in the Southeast and in the Midwest. My investors and I are looking for cash flow, but we’re looking for long-term growth. I identify three markets, hypothetically, where I think strong growth is possible, and I am seeing a political climate that is favorable to the development of my asset class in these markets. If I see a brilliant opportunity, obviously, I’m going to pounce.
When I’m looking at not necessarily marginal deals, but when I’m looking at opportunities that would require that the market grow as is expected in the current political climate in order to reach my metrics, what should I look towards to ensure that the current commercial real estate favorable political climate will survive? Should I just be tracking elections? Is there something else? Is it possible, and how can I make myself certain that a market is going to remain with good conditions for developing commercial real estate?
Sam Liebman: Okay. Well, it’s a good question, and you have to decide if you’re going to be a pioneer or not. I don’t want to be a pioneer; I’m going to wait to see what’s being developed, how projects are getting approved or not approved. We do look at, in Austin for instance, how many student housing properties were put in for approvals. You can see, you can talk, but I’m going to wait until I see progress before I jump in, especially if you’re doing construction. You want to see unions, you want to see what the climate is there. Are they friendly towards developers? What are the views? We have an ever-changing political climate now, and depending on who gets in, it can change everything.
Just look at the president — not getting political, but from Trump’s policies to Biden’s policies, it’s a 360, 180-degree turn. So what I do is I follow — I don’t want to be a pioneer. I want to follow a pioneer and see how it is.
By the way, in Texas – that’s what happened in Texas and Dallas. There was a company called Power Properties, and on Gaston Avenue we bought over 20 properties. We watched our properties go in, renovate these classy properties, and we saw the rents they were getting. And they were the pioneers, we just followed them, and we were very, very successful. That’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about.
Slocomb Reed: Thinking about inflection points – you don’t want to be a pioneer, you want to follow the pioneers. I’d like to talk about this using Simon Sinek’s language around the bell curve of innovation. I don’t know if you’re familiar, let me give a quick summary for our Best Ever listeners. Everyone knows what a bell curve is shaped like. When you’re talking about innovation, you start the bottom left corner, and you look at the bell curve of the population. Let’s say it is the population for us; I’ll use two examples. One of them is the air pods from Apple that are in my ears right now. Someone has to innovate, and that’s where the bell curve starts. Apple announces that they’ve created this new headphone experience, this new phone call experience, whatever you want to call it. Apple is the innovator.
There is a group of people, a certain percentage, the moment Apple announces any new item, they immediately go wait in line in front of the store 24-48 hours, because they want to be the first to have it. Those people are called early adopters. The early adopters want to see an innovator or a pioneer come up with a great new thing, or create change in the marketplace, and then they want to pounce on it.
After you have the early adopters, you have the early majority. The early majority needs to know that not only has an innovation taking place, but some people have gotten positive results with that innovation. I would be early majority when it comes to these air pods. I don’t stand outside of a store and wait for anything in the cold for 24 hours. But as soon as I saw other people wearing them, I needed to know, because I hate holding a phone to my head. After then after early majority, you have late majority, and then you have what Simon Sinek calls the laggards.
I’m hearing you say, Sam, that you like to be either an early adopter or in the early majority when you see that a political climate is favorable in an emerging market for commercial real estate and development. Where would you put yourself, and how is it that you identify those moments at which you see that the innovators are innovating, or you see that there are early adopter developers coming in and that they’re seeing some success? How do you track that?
Sam Liebman: Okay. So it was an old saying in real estate, you’ve got to have a nose; a nose for deals. On my tax return, when it says occupation, you know what I put down? Opportunist. I’m an opportunist. I made it fortune buying other people’s mistakes. Now, you can be a frontiersman and go out in the wilderness if you choose. I choose to find other people’s mistakes, obvious value-add… My success and what I try to teach my students and followers is to master the fundamentals so you can see opportunities overlooked by others. That’s how I did it.
I don’t go with bell curves, I don’t go with this. Yes, I look at demographics, I look at all of that… But you have to get to a point, as you know, as a developer, where most of the stuff you do is on the back of an envelope, because you know so much that you get a few facts, and boom. That’s where you need to be. You need to be where a deal comes in, you can act fast, you know what to do, and that’s why I say I’m an opportunist. You haven’t yet, but if you asked me, “Well, do you want to go in the commercial sector, do you want to go in the residential sector?” It doesn’t matter, I want to go where the opportunity is.
Sometimes it’s development, sometimes it’s rehab, sometimes it’s in industrial, sometimes it’s what you explained to me, warehouse, which is very good. So that’s what I do. I get so many deals in that you have to weed through them and I have so much experience that I know pretty much right away which one I want to pursue and which ones go into the circular file.
Slocomb Reed: Back of the napkin math is incredibly helpful for deal analysis. I know doing my own off-market lead generation here in Cincinnati, I know apartments. Sometimes I don’t need the back of the napkin to know whether or not a deal makes sense if it’s an apartment building in the size range that I’m already operating. But I’m also looking at office, retail, other commercial uses, and I still need more information and more analysis before I know that I can pull the trigger on something. So that makes a lot of sense.
Sam Liebman: I’m going to tell you something that might differ with you. I think office buildings or retail – there’s going to be Armageddon, and you’re going to be able to pick up those prices at tremendous discounts soon. You don’t need to live in a city to do business with the city anymore. You know what the occupancy rate in New York City is right now? 30%. Now, in my humble opinion, I don’t think it’s ever going to go over more than 65%. If I’m right, all these leases that are going to mature — we have a law firm, 30,000 square feet; you’re paying $80 a foot. You only need half the space now. “Hello, landlord, we’ve got to talk. I don’t want to pay anymore $80. I can get better space for $55 across the street.”
Now, if you look at the ramifications of that, where the owner now has to retrofit the old tenants from his 30,000 square feet to his 15,000 square feet. Maybe the bathrooms are on the wrong side, he’s got to redo that; it costs money. Then he’s got to retrofit the new space for the new tenant, 15,000 square feet. He’s got to pay retrofitting it, he’s got to give TI to the new tenant, probably four or five months free rent, he’s going to have to pay a broker, and he’s going to have downtime. Now that’s one tenant. And this is what’s happening in Manhattan. So I hear people say, “Well, they’re going to be vacant. Maybe they’ll repurpose the space, convert it to residential.” Yeah, maybe you can do that. But actually, when you convert it to residential, it’s not that easy. You’ve got to cut the building, so you lose a lot of space.
I’ve been through it. Remember, I bought the buildings for 575,000 that were 4 million in 1993. I’ll tell you another story. We bought a package of 15 buildings in Dallas, we paid I think was 12.2; five years before that package was $56 million. So this can happen.
I believe that the retail sector, because of technology –and we’re seeing it happen– and because of the office building issue, there’s going to be Armageddon, and banks are going to be inundated with foreclosures. I have a lot of relationships with banks, and they agree with me; they’re gearing up for it.
Slocomb Reed: So whether or not you pounce on a deal has much more to do with the micro economic factors impacting that particular property and its particular distress, more so than trying to predict the markets that are going to see growth?
Sam Liebman: Well, again, the price you pay is, to me, the most important thing. The price you pay is a permanent cost, so yeah. If you’re talking about where I see it going – I could be wrong; actually, I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. One of my successes is being able to time markets. I timed the market in the ’90s, I timed the market in the 2000s… And right now, we’re sitting back, we have a tremendous amount of capital, and we’re just sitting back waiting for the right time to pounce in again. There’s a shortage of rental housing, for a lot of reasons… So I do think that the rental housing sector, which is my favorite sector, because you can get tremendous financing. Who’s going to finance an office building or a retail building? You think you can get attractive financing for that? Maybe if you have a small shopping center with Triple A tenant, you will. But for an office building – banks don’t want to go near that unless you put in a personal guarantee, 50% cash, interest reserves… Who wants to do that?
So I go where the financing is, and residential is the place to be. I think residential is going to keep going up, for a lot of reasons. But the housing market is too big, too strong, too high; people can’t afford houses. There’s also a change in culture with millennials. A lot of millennials would rather rent. There’s a movement now called build to rent; have you heard about that?
Slocomb Reed: Yes, I have. It’s much more popular in other parts of the country than where I am in Ohio, because it has a lot to do with market rents. My understanding is it’s much more popular on the coasts than it is in the middle of the country, because the rents that you can command are proportionally higher there, relative to construction costs.
Sam Liebman: Well, my point was though is the change in the younger generation and the older generation, that they don’t want to own, they’d rather rent. Everything has become disposable and portable now, so you’ve got to look at that. Restaurants are changing the way they construct their restaurants now, because millennials would rather take the food, bring it to their house. It’s like my wife and I. At night, she’s on her iPad, I’m on my iPad. It’s getting to be where there’s no reason to leave the house anymore, which is sad, but it’s the reality.
So all these changes in culture, all these changes – there’s a lot of them. People have asked me, “So where do you think real estate is going to be?” The answer I say is, “It’s Bob Dylan’s song. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.”
If the wind blows this way and interest rates go up, there are other factors or variables, and I can tell you which way I think it’s going to go. If the wind blows right, and interest rates go down, or something happens where they change the laws, I can tell you that. But I can’t tell you which way the wind’s going to blow. And that’s the problem, there are so many more variables than there were years ago.
Slocomb Reed: Sam, are you ready for our Best Ever lightning round?
Sam Liebman: Oh, I never did one of those.
Slocomb Reed: What is the Best Ever book you’ve most recently read?
Sam Liebman: My book, Harvard Can’t Teach What You Learn From The Streets. No, there’s a very good book that I read years ago and I read it again about two months ago… It’s called the E-Myth and it’s by Michael Gerber. I don’t know him or anything, so this is an independent one… But the premise is, to be a successful business, you need three qualities. You have to be entrepreneurial, you have to have management skills, and technical skills. And if you lack in any of those, your business will fail. I’ve found that to be — it’s only like 110 pages, an easy read. I thought it was a great book, really…
Slocomb Reed: Totally, foundational. What is your Best Ever way to get back?
Sam Liebman: That’s what I’m doing now. I’ve given up trying to be the richest guy in the cemetery. Honest to God. I wrote this book, Harvard Can’t Teach What You Learn From The Streets in English, with real-life stories. You can learn to build lasting wealth through real estate by mastering the fundamentals; that is what people don’t understand. You must master the fundamentals to build upon. It’s like being a tennis player and you’ve got a forehand, and right away you want to learn the backhand. But if you don’t master that forehand, there’s going to be a part in your growth where you’re going to play someone that’s going to take advantage of what you didn’t perfect.
So I always mastered the fundamentals, and I’m giving back by doing podcasts that I hope people will learn from, I’m giving lectures, I’m mentoring young kids… I love it, because a lot of kids are lost now. When you mention real estate, it’s a big, hot subject now, and you see these kids… I’ve got a kid coming in Tuesday, he’s in graduate school, and he’s going to come in and start, and I want to keep getting more kids involved. I love it. I love doing it. That’s how I’m giving back.
Slocomb Reed: You’re leading right into our next question here… What is your Best Ever advice?
Sam Liebman: Master the fundamentals, be a gym rat, be passionate. Develop passion. That’s what I did. Real estate was the perfect industry for my personality. Bricks don’t talk back. I never wanted to get involved with raises and salaries of people, but I love increasing property value; it really turns me on. I’ve never been focused on how much money I was going to make, I always focused on, “If I do this right, there will be money.” Master the fundamentals, love what you’re doing, and don’t take shortcuts, especially in due diligence.
Slocomb Reed: Sam, how can our Best Ever listeners get in touch with you?
Sam Liebman: samliebman.com. I’d be happy; if you go in – just join, it’s free. We have articles, see all my buildings. With the building, I put a story of what we did to it pretty much, which I think people will find very interesting. My passion right now is to teach. I’m working on an online real estate academy called Street Success Real Estate Academy. I market myself as the kid from the streets who overcame a lot, became successful, and I’m the same guy I always was; straight-talking, no bull, and that’s it. I’m who I am and I did alright.
Slocomb Reed: Awesome. Well, Best Ever listeners, thank you for tuning in. If you’ve gotten value from this episode, please subscribe to the show, leave us a five-star review, and please share this episode with your friends so that we can add value to them, too. Thank you and have a Best Ever day.
Website disclaimer
This website, including the podcasts and other content herein, are made available by Joesta PF LLC solely for informational purposes. The information, statements, comments, views and opinions expressed in this website do not constitute and should not be construed as an offer to buy or sell any securities or to make or consider any investment or course of action. Neither Joe Fairless nor Joesta PF LLC are providing or undertaking to provide any financial, economic, legal, accounting, tax or other advice in or by virtue of this website. The information, statements, comments, views and opinions provided in this website are general in nature, and such information, statements, comments, views and opinions are not intended to be and should not be construed as the provision of investment advice by Joe Fairless or Joesta PF LLC to that listener or generally, and do not result in any listener being considered a client or customer of Joe Fairless or Joesta PF LLC.
The information, statements, comments, views, and opinions expressed or provided in this website (including by speakers who are not officers, employees, or agents of Joe Fairless or Joesta PF LLC) are not necessarily those of Joe Fairless or Joesta PF LLC, and may not be current. Neither Joe Fairless nor Joesta PF LLC make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information, statements, comments, views or opinions contained in this website, and any liability therefor (including in respect of direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage of any kind whatsoever) is expressly disclaimed. Neither Joe Fairless nor Joesta PF LLC undertake any obligation whatsoever to provide any form of update, amendment, change or correction to any of the information, statements, comments, views or opinions set forth in this podcast.
No part of this podcast may, without Joesta PF LLC’s prior written consent, be reproduced, redistributed, published, copied or duplicated in any form, by any means.
Joe Fairless serves as director of investor relations with Ashcroft Capital, a real estate investment firm. Ashcroft Capital is not affiliated with Joesta PF LLC or this website, and is not responsible for any of the content herein.
Oral Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as an offer to buy or sell any securities or to make or consider any investment or course of action. For more information, go to www.bestevershow.com.
