Peter Linneman & Willy Walker | Real Estate Impact Conference 2026

Welcome to the 14th annual University of Miami Real Estate Impact Conference. Today, we bring together some of the most influential voices shaping the future of real estate, including Nadeem Meghji, Arnaud Karsenti, Peter Linneman, Willy Walker, Stuart Miller, Steve Witkoff, and Manny Kadre.

We are proud to recognize our presenting sponsors, Blackstone, Douglas Elliman, H&M Development, Kap Morrison Acre LLP, Kislak Family Foundation, Metropolitan Realty Group, and Witkoff. We also extend our sincere appreciation to our platinum sponsors, our prestige sponsors, our premier sponsors, and our partner sponsors.

Now, let's dive into what's shaping tomorrow's skyline, right here at the 2026 University of Miami Real Estate Impact Conference. Next up on stage is Peter Linneman and Willy Walker.

Peter Linneman is an acclaimed economist, author, and advisor. A former Albert Sussman Professor of Real Estate, Finance, and Public Policy at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and founding chairman of its Real Estate Department and Zell Lurie Real Estate Center. He is the recipient of Pria's Grass Camp Award, Wharton's Lifetime Achievement Award, and numerous national honors. He's also a founder of Linneman Associates, and a former chairman of Rockefeller Center Properties.

And Willy Walker, chairman and CEO of Walker and Dunlop, and host of the acclaimed Walker Webcast. A recipient of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award, and multiple time financier of the year, he serves on the boards of the US Olympic and Paralympic Foundation, and Harvard Business School's Board of Deans' Advisors. He is also a member of the Real Estate Roundtable. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Peter Linneman and Willy Walker.

The Manny and you are too young, but there used to be this thing called Hamburger Helper, which was just filler to make hamburger go farther. So, I figured between Nadeem and the Dean and Witkoff, we're just hamburger helper.

Just to remind people, we stopped having a lot of data. And just before we stopped, the pattern of data, not one piece, but the pattern of data, was consistent with a blip, temporary slowdown, and we're at the beginning of losing a million or two jobs. And I just didn't know it was like you were waiting for the next chapter, and they didn't release the next chapter. They then released the next chapter, and I don't mean just one piece of data, the collage, and you go, it looks blippy. And in which case, I became optimistic. There's always things happen, but I became optimistic because I got a little better pick of the pattern. So, I'm optimistic now. I think people are probably way too pessimistic right now, and I mean right now, as we speak. I think people are too pessimistic, but we'll get into that, I'm sure.

100,000 positive, just to be clear.

You lied and said you didn't hear the negative. I'm an honest guy.

I don't think the data's being manipulated in a political sense. I think they have a lot of trouble with their data right now. Response rates are not great. They're declining for a lot of reasons. I think the job data in particular is vulnerable to small businesses not reporting. There's no stick or carrot associated with reporting. It's 121,000 firms they survey. Few of you may do that, most of you don't. And then they have algorithms to figure out versus those answers. My intuition, but I can't prove this, is that a whole lot of firms, given the whole ICE episode that's been going on, if somebody showed up and asked you, 'Tell us about your employment. I'm from the government,' and I have many illegal workers, I'm just going to throw it in the bin. And that gets through their algorithms over interpreted as businesses went out of business. I don't know what else they can do. So, I told you that last year, officially, we had 181,000 jobs growth, even though, which is 10 basis points of job growth, no job growth, in other words. And in fact, you had 800,000 jobs added in health care. We only had 181,000 total, which means the rest of the economy didn't add jobs. I don't believe that. I just don't believe it. I lived through the year. GDP grew by 2.2%. Okay, maybe it was 2.4, maybe it was two. You don't get that kind of GDP growth with no labor increase. You don't have unemployment insurance claims stay low and flat, if that's the case. And I think that they're struggling with that. And I think this month, you say, 'Well, what about last month?' Last month may have been much better than it said. Yes, they revised down. So, I think right now, it paints a picture. The picture it paints is notably slow job growth versus two years ago. That I believe. But I believe we basically still have positive job growth. Can I prove it? No, but I can establish a lot of fact pattern to be supportive.

So, y'all should just commit suicide. Robots and AI are going to take everything. Look, all of history, and we don't have a lot else to go on other than history and intuition. All of history says, 'The more technology we have, the more employment we have.' And every time, and this is true for 125 years, and every time, everybody says, 'But this time's going to be different.' And it's not different, and it's not different for a fundamental reason. When you have something that increases productivity, it creates wealth. And when wealth gets created, people don't bury it. So, different people may have wealth, may have a different concentration, there may be particular people hurt, but there's more wealth. And the people who have that wealth are either going to invest it or spend it. I don't think they're going to burn it. I don't think they're going to create wealth and burn it. I don't think they're going to create wealth and bury it. All of history, wealth got created by productivity, and it gets either spent or invested. And if you believe AI is dramatically changing, the game you want to be in is the people who capture that wealth. Where are they going to invest it? And where are they going to spend it? And get in front of that. And all of history has said, yep, you know, those jobs disappeared. Walking behind a plow horse disappeared. Young people your age bending metal, which is what they did literally bending metal. Go back and look at old photographs. I grew up in a manufacturing city. Okay, those jobs are gone. But there's a whole bunch of new jobs that nobody ever dreamed of. That's what an economy is. And that's what I believe it will be. And I'll give one other thing and then I'll shut up, not for the rest of the session, but I'll shut up, which is over a long period of time, but I'm rounding, we get about 1 and 1/2% productivity growth a year. That's how we get wealth. Right? We get we're better, cheaper, faster, right? Not everything better, cheaper, faster. That's with electricity, that's with potable water, that's with modern sewage, that's with computers, that's with internal combustion, airplanes, cell phones, the whole thing. We get about 1 and 1/2%. Okay? The real question is not will AI increase productivity? It's is it why we're going to get 1 and 1/2% over the next 20 or 30 years? Or is it in addition to the 1 and 1/2% we'd normally get? Now, that's an important question when you think about 1 and 1/2% of GDP a year versus 3% of GDP a year from productivity. Okay? My own view is it's probably closer to how we get the 1 and 1/2%. Just like we got it from electricity, we got it from internal combustion, because these things take longer to integrate than people think. It would be like think of global warming. If the temperature projections came true that they'd talk about for the next century in the next 6 minutes, that would be tough to adjust to. But if they occur over a century, not such a big deal to adjust to. This is similar. If everything they said about AI happened suddenly, like tomorrow, it'll be a big challenge. It'll be a challenge anyway, but if it happens over 20 years or 30 years, things take time to absorb. That's my view.

Right. And they study that period of time and over the last 25 years, the average is 10 weeks. So, from 2000 to 2007, the average was 10 weeks if you lost your job and it would take you to find a new job. Then in the Great Financial Crisis, that spike came back down. From 2012 to 2020, stayed at 10 weeks. Pandemic hits, spikes up again, comes back down. 2022 to 2025, 10 weeks. So, I'm sitting there looking at this data. Thank you for the data. And I sat there and I said, 'But from 2000 to 2007, no one had an iPhone. No one had LinkedIn. No one had any ability to find a job electronically from 2000 to 2007. Yet the time period to find a job is exactly the same in 2025 as it was in 2000.' So, while I understand this technology is coming in, we sort of sit there and say, 'Wow, that period of time is going to be shrunk dramatically.' And it just hasn't.

It was supposed to be the most inefficient market on earth was the dating. You had to be at the right bar at the right time to meet the right person. And then all of a sudden we came out with these dating apps that were supposed to make the most inefficient market efficient. Okay? And many of you in this room have dating apps on. They might be a swipe right, swipe left, what have you. But you're supposed to be able to find your partner. Well, guess what? Between 2000 and 2025, the marriage rate in the United States is down by 26%. So, here's this great efficient market, yet less people are getting married today than they were previously. Now, by the way, I've been married basically 53 years. When I say basically, in a few months.

Let me restate that. Kathy and I have been married for almost 53 years. When I heard this, I said, 'Well, maybe the apps are working.' These people shouldn't be getting married, you know? That's a little cynical.

Since the pandemic.

You're starting to see I'll give you one obvious. You're seeing bigger deals. Right? Bigger deals. Deals have natural barriers like when you see the biggest deal that's ever occurred, it meant you've overcome hurdles, right? That are beyond normal. And that means people must have money. And when they have a lot of money, there's a risk they have more money than brains. Not to suggest they're stupid. That's a very different thing. You can be brilliant, but if you have more money than brains, what are you going to do with it, right? And so, that's a good example. You're starting to see mega deals. Right? Which means people have maybe a little too much confidence in trees growing to the sky. AI to me, I can believe in it, but I don't believe trees grow to the sky. I believe trees grow. But I don't believe they grow forever. And so, those are the kind of hints of you don't see many of them in real estate. The only one notably you see in real estate could relate to data centers.

And my rationale is simply three things. Come on. I'm almost 75, so you don't ask for a 75-year-old to have great insights on technology, right? But the margins I heard Nadeem. Nadeem said what? The yield on cost is something like just under 8%. Where else can you get an 8% yield on cost developing? No, right? So, it means a lot of money going there. Means the margin is very big. You show me a sector in any industry over my lifetime, including this one, where margins are double or 50% to 100% higher than normal, guess what you have in two or three or four years? Over supply. Even if demand's good, you will end up markets adjust. So, my concern is on the supply side. And then the other concern is, and I think Nadeem mentioned it, who takes out who's the takeout? And that's a challenge. We don't know who the takeout is. Well, if I don't know who the takeout is, I own an apartment complex in Dover/New Philadelphia, Ohio. Nobody knows it. I assume I don't have a takeout equity. I will, but I assume I don't. Why? Because nobody knows. So, as I evaluate it, I assume nobody knows. There is a pricing of these deals where everybody seems to act like they know what the takeout is. They seem to know that just because a tenant is credit worthy today, they'll be tenant credit worthy in three years. I'm old enough to remember when strip centers begged to get Kmart as their anchor tenant, and by the time the center opened, you're selling your strip center, they were an anchor, not an anchor tenant. Okay? Got it? And by the way, at the moment Kmart was really doing well. So, it's not like I have some insight beyond I just have seen too many companies. What makes Microsoft, what makes Walmart, and a few other companies amazing is they have successfully reinvented themselves repeatedly over 40 years. Not easy to do. If you went to the record of most companies, if you can reinvent yourself twice over a 30-40 year period, you're doing great. And everybody assumes that the hyperscalers will be forever gold. Do you ever hear of a company called Ford Motor? Did you ever hear of a company When I was a kid, they truly meant that whatever was good for GM, General Motors, was good for America.

No. GE was the most valuable company on Earth in 2000 at a market cap of half a trillion dollars.

Almost died. So, I'm not trying to pick on anybody. I'm just

So, Peter, in the canaries in the coal mine, one of the ones that you've had for quite a while is the misguided Fed. And I think in the last one you had four canaries dead on a misguided Fed.

Only because I'm nice, they're not all five dead.

All right. So, I have a very simple approach to this. And obviously, there's more complicated equations and data behind it. I'm going to make this real simple. To take a short-term highly liquid risk, I don't think I need a big return premium over inflation. All right? That's step one. Step two, where's inflation? If you look at the roughly 80,000 items that people truly consume, inflation is running about 2.1 to 2.2% for the last 2 years. Not for the last 2 months, for the last 2 years, it's been running at 2.1 to 2.2 a year. The only reason it registers higher is mainly because of an item called owner equivalent rent. And any of you who own homes, I want you to tell me immediately how much rent do you pay yourself for your home? And your answer is, nothing. No one ever bought it. And that's a quarter of what drives the consumer price index. And it's been high, and it's what causes it to be up. Just as an aside, he helped create it with Milton Friedman.

He helped create that owner equivalent rent. So, he knows it all too well because he actually created the measure.

of what you were trying to do. You were trying to compare For example, it was a useful I'm not saying perfect, but it was a useful effort to basically ask, what's the cap rate you apply to your home, and is there an arbitrage between rental and owner of a home. Got it? That was what motivated me. You could say, well, that was stupid. I was young and stupid. All right? That's what I did. But 2.1, 2.2% for 2 years. By the way, the 30-year average of the inflation, not including that owner equivalent, for the 30 years prior to the onset of the pandemic was 2.2.

So, for 2 years we've been back to basically where we were, with noise, for 30 years prior to the pandemic, which kind of disrupted everything. All right? We've been back. If it's 2.2%, what how much return do you need? I would say 50 basis points, maybe 75 basis points. That's as 2.75 to 3. There are some people would say you only need 25 basis points. That would say 2.5. So, somewhere between 2.5 and 3. I would say closer to 2.75. It is currently 3.5. I'm being kind. It's currently 3. Well, that's 75 basis points too high. And the way I've won my bets What's that?

With the new appointments By the way, if you were the president, and you think rates are too high, and you're choosing people, are you going to pick somebody who believes it should be 100 basis points over inflation, or 25 basis points over inflation? Doesn't mean you're going to force an answer on them. They went to the same universities. They worked at the same jobs. They all have integrity. Right? But you're going to pick people, right? So, it's very possible you're going to get a majority in there in the course of the next year or so that believe it should be 25 to 50. And you're on for this year then for 75 basis points cut, I think is absolutely in. They'll backload it again, like they've done the last 2 years. I think they'll do one probably before the middle of the year, and again, probably two at the end of the year. And depending on resignations, like I think Powell will go off. I don't know that, but I think he'll go off. He has more term. That's another appointment. That's going to be another person who believes 25 over inflation, and so forth. So, it could easily be 100.

Three. Three and four. Well, four and five.

I wore clean shoes and socks, just so you know.

Thank you. He's a man of his word. They were very expensive, by the way. They're huge. They charge you for when they're 13 and a half size.

Okay. So when I got that, he told me, you do know where Elon Musk went to school, don't you? Not Harvard. Wharton. He alone is richer than all these Harvard snobs, you know?

Let me do it this way. If you're worth 175 trillion, are you terribly bothered? By the way, let me go one step further. You're worth 175 trillion and it's growing by 8 to 10 trillion a year. Your wealth is 175 trillion growing 8 to 10%. Well, I'm putting it in trillions then to round it, right? So, it's growing 8 to 10 trillion a year, okay? And you're worth 175 trillion to start with. But against that is off-balance liability of 27 trillion in federal government debt. And that's rising by 2 trillion a year. So, your wealth is 127 and the other debt is 27. What's your net? Like 148 trillion. You got a lot of wealth, don't you? You got a lot of borrowing capacity, if you will. You got a lot of collateral, if you will, on that liability, right? And another way of viewing it is if your wealth is growing, let's just say 8 trillion a year, okay? Do you think you could take on another 2 trillion in other liabilities? That 8 trillion is net of normal debt, right? So, there's this other 2 trillion that we're running as a deficit. Well, if I could always create 8 trillion in wealth, I could take on another two. Not should I or shouldn't I. That's a totally different question, right? Should I or shouldn't I is a different question. Can I? Of course. And that's why my entire life I've heard people say, 'We can't go on. It's going to destroy the economy.' And yet, over my life, the economy has grown. Not because of, but it doesn't melt the economy down because we create wealth. And everybody follow what I mean by that? Right? It's kind of obvious when you think. And people say, 'Well, how would we pay it off?' Well, we could tax ourselves. And remember when we pay off that debt, two-thirds of it we owe ourselves. So, this half the room pays it, that half the room gets two-thirds of it. You know, it's not as bad as it sounds, right? And so, the real problem is if we don't create wealth. And the United Kingdom, I'm not picking on them, has not created wealth since 2007. Different problem for them. You don't create wealth, the growth in that deficit is a bigger problem. Germany hasn't grown since 2016. You don't create wealth, it's a bigger problem. Zimbabwe never created wealth. When Zimbabwe runs a debt deficit, it's a problem. Okay? And I'm not saying we should have a deficit, we shouldn't have a deficit. I'm saying we can. And we're not robbing our children and grandchildren. When you go out to eat tonight, are you robbing your children by paying for your meal? No, it's part of your normal life. Right? That's it. And people say, 'Well, how do we keep floating this debt?' Because we're wealthier. It's that simple. And because the rest of the world gets wealthier, and where would you rather if you just struck oil in Guyana and you're the one who's getting a lot of that wealth, would you want to invest it in Guyana or in US bonds? I know where I'd invest it. Same place as you do it.

I believe in basic economics, okay? What's the basic economics? Who's the marginal producer of oil in the world since about 2014? US. We're the largest oil producer in the history of the world. We're 21% of all oil production in the world. Why? We weren't before fracking. And fracking changed everything. And the best numbers I see, and they're not perfect, is by and large fracking is available at scale with some degree of profitability at around $40 and then you have to layer on overhead, right? You have to kind of put that on. We know they were willing to frack at record levels when the price was 58 and 60, okay? Now the price goes to 90. What are you going to do? You're going to do more. By the way, somebody comes up to you and says, 'Are you going to do more?' Wall Street had a stupid article the other day and said, 'Oh, they're not going to do it this time.' And you go, 'Are you nuts?' If you were willing to do it at 58, you're really willing to do it at 90. You're still willing to do it if it's 86. You're willing to do it if it's 82. You're willing to do it if it's 78. And if you kind of do crude math, if it's break even incrementally at let's say 45 or 50 and you layer on overhead, you kind of see where it's at and that's the incremental supply. And the tar sands, the math is not so different up in Canada. It's different, but it's not so different. So, why will it come down? It's going to come down because supply will come on. Had it not been for fracking, do you realize where oil would literally be at today? If it had not been for the US, if we would have done like Europe does and say, 'No, no, we're not going to frack.' Or like New York state does, 'We're not going to frack.' Oil would easily be over $200 as we're talking today. And it would be worse than it sounds because we net as a country, not every individual, benefit from higher oil prices. We're the largest producer in the world. So, when the oil price goes up, we gain. Just like Saudi Arabia gains. Except we're not being bombed. If it weren't for fracking, we would be a net importer and we'd be getting crushed economically with no opportunity to take advantage of it. So, the world changed dramatically. And by the way, everything I just said about oil, you can kind of do with natural gas. The numbers are different, but the concepts are the same. And so, that's why I believe it'll be down. Do I know when the war ends? No. Do I know how it ends? No. All I'm counting on is the world doesn't end. And by the way, and I don't mean to be totally glib, if the world ends, I've had 75 good years.

Right. No, I just... All I'm saying is we're going to produce. And because if he doesn't produce, the guy in the well next to him is going to produce.

The big one I got wrong since COVID, which was 6 years ago. 6 years ago, almost today.

Was how fast people would come back to the office. I thought they would have been... And I was very vocal...

They have come back. I understood productivity. I understood the literature on cognitive behavior. I used to joke and say I can barely get my people... This is not literally true, but I used to joke saying, 'I can barely get them to work when they're here. How am I going to get them to work when they're not here and they're walking their dogs?' And yeah, if you have a really nice place to work and you're really disciplined, which this group would tend to be, but that's not most people most... So, most of the people most of the time, the cognitive literature showed you're better off working in a group than alone for a variety of reasons. And I thought by late '22, they'd be back and hence office would be back. And what happened was they didn't come back or they came, but much more slowly. In the meantime, office got hollowed out and then that led capital to just flee. It was self-reinforcing. So, not only was the rent occupancy bad, capital left. And by the way, as you know, people are coming back, right? But, it's massively... I mean, I'd give myself a score of... you know, this is a John Maynard Keynes in the long run, I got it right, but I didn't get it right. That would be the biggest, I would think. I made a couple of other mistakes, but not a lot. The job market last year was not as weak as the data shows. But, it was weak. And if you'd have looked back what I said at the beginning of 2025, I think I was saying like a million four. And I think it ended up around 800,000. I don't believe the 180,000. We could have a conversation, but I told you kind of why. And that's a pretty big miss.

It's impossibly inconsistent. How could... cuz what's going to happen with all that wealth? What's going to happen with all that income, right? So, you can't have one belief and have the other, in my view. I would love it. I would love nothing more than to see AI raise productivity from 1 and 1/2% a year to 3 or 4% a year, and then you'd get that GDP. Why? For the same reason I'm glad we have tractors instead of walking behind plow horses. And I'm glad we have computers. And I'm glad we have automation to lift steel instead of, you know, somebody having to lift molten metal, you know, all those reasons. I don't think it'll happen, but I would be thrilled if it happened because we would have more leisure. Remember, by the way, you go back 100 years ago, you understand the work week was 6 and 1/2 days a week? So, what's happened is we get a percent... I'm rounding all this. We get a percent and a half productivity growth a year. We consume about 2/3 of that, and we take about a third of it in leisure. So, we went from working 6 and 1/2 days a week to 6 days a week to 5 and 1/2 days a week to 5. We probably were close to 4 and 3/4 days when COVID hit. We continue to create wealth. Is it surprising you see it drifting down? And everyone say, 'Well, it can't go lower.' Of course it can go lower. Right? And so, we may be in the midst of a 4-day work week. That doesn't mean every company works 4 days, not every person. So, I'd love to see that. I don't think I'm going to see it on a sustained basis, but I'd be thrilled. One final thing, and we're going to go to some questions after this. On that, if we were sitting here in 2000, and I said to you the internet and e-commerce seems to be a big thing, and there's this company called Amazon out there, you and I would have run out and bought Amazon, particularly if I told you it was going to turn into a $5 trillion market cap company, right? That would have been the right move.

Yeah. If you told someone in 2000 that Amazon would become a $5 trillion market cap company, you would have sold every piece of bricks-and-mortar retail that anyone ever owned. Yet today, how much retail is online versus bricks-and-mortar? Six out of every $7 not including auto, right? Six out of every seven retail dollars still go through bricks. That's not to say online hasn't grown. Of course it's grown, and online has taken way like 90% of the growth, but six out of $7 keeps a lot of people busy, right? And it's going to keep them busy a long time. And gives Walmart a $1 trillion market cap. Think about that. By the way, you know the main difference between Walmart and Amazon in terms of retail? Walmart makes money on their retail. Amazon does not make money on their retail. How does Amazon... Trust me, if you go through the number... How does Amazon make money? They make it from web services. So, the cloud, if you will, is a huge money maker. And they make it from procurement services, right? Which is a service... So, Amazon makes money from being a warehouse and a procurement company. Okay? And one other thing, information. And essentially, they're willing to sell at zero profit to a small loss to have your information. Why? To sell it to advertisers. That's it. Okay? But, they don't make money from retailing. Walmart makes money from retailing. They make money from retailing. And that's why they wanted the online part. Walmart wanted to double dip cuz they had figured out how to make money from retailing. And if they could also figure out how to make it from gathering information and selling that information for advertising, they could double dip. And they have done it not as effectively as Amazon on the information side. They come a long way.

I think they like your questions better.

All right. So, we've got a couple of questions related to housing affordability. You could take this in any direction you want, but I'm going to interject a thought on it. Richard Green out of USC in the Lusk Center had a dialogue about this in the fall, and he said, you know, there's an underlying demographic issue with housing affordability that we didn't have so much in the past, which is related to the marriage rate. That essentially single person efforts to acquire housing are more difficult than married people. So, that was an interesting twist to all of the other things we usually think about with interest rates and other things. But, take that in any direction you want.

Well, as you know, the average age of the first-time home buyer in America today is 39 years old.

Okay. So, yeah. So, I'll give you... Remember, this is an old guy, and I've studied housing a fair amount. Two fundamental things are happening on housing affordability. One on the supply side. Communities don't want you if you're an entrant. They don't want you. They want Stewart, who's going to come out here in a moment. They want Lennar Homes. That they want. They just don't want other home builders.

Don't want you. Why? 2/3 of all... Just think of the following electoral math. 2/3 of all households own their home. If you own a home, the last thing you want is competitive supply. And people figured out how to drive that politically. Oh, yeah, we want them. We really want an initiative. We'll subsidize nine houses. See how good we are. But, the hell with the rest of them. We're not going to let them build. And by saying not going to let them build, we're going to put fees on. We're going to put delays on. We're going to do... going to do. They don't want you politically. 2/3 will outvote 1/3. It's that simple. And they figured it out. The second is on the other side, the consumer side. So, when I got married out of university, okay? And when I got married out of university, probably 50% of university graduates in the United States did. Come back 5 years later, probably down to 15%. Was right on the cusp of that. If you're getting married, and by the way, many were married before that. If you're getting married in your 20 to 25, and you're having kids 2 to 3 years later, you tell me when you need a backyard and schools. And the answer is by 30. If you know you need backyard and schools by the age of 30, you don't do DoorDash. You don't take a ski trip. You don't take a Caribbean trip. You don't go to Europe because you committed to the little rugrats. And you need money for the down payment. And so, you saved. Now, today, you get married at 30. I'm rounding. And you get 2 to 3 years till you have a kid. When do you need a backyard and schools? 40. When you're sort of 38, 39. Guess what you get to do in your 20s instead of saving to buy the home. I'll go to the Caribbean, and I'll go DoorDash. I mean, people do home delivery like it's a birthright. You know, it just staggers me how people who complain about... My wife and I carry out from restaurants. We live in Center City, Philadelphia. We carry out from restaurants, and trust me, we could afford DoorDash. We see DoorDash coming in and out of every low-income apartment building in the city, right? And there's the... There we are because I'm be damned if I'm going to pay an $8 fee, right? I'm not saying good or bad. Consumption choices are consumption choices. It's not mine to say.

Okay, I think this is a student question, but what is the most difficult part of conducting an economic analysis while still maintaining accuracy when markets are constantly changing?

I have two I would add. One is don't focus on the shiny objects. There are too many shiny objects, and by nature, since we were infants, we're attracted to shiny objects. And there's a million shiny objects. When you're doing a real estate, you're doing a long-term investment. And even if you're only going to hold it for 3 years, the person who's going to take it off your hands has to look. And I think people get caught looking too much at the short-term shiny object. And the second relates to that is they get too politically entwined. And one benefit I've had is I basically have always thought both the Democrats and Republicans are scoundrels. And so I've never viewed I had a team. And I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying that was my view. So I never felt I had to support a team. And so there's... You'd be amazed. I get these emails saying you're just a Biden apologist. And then I'll next day get you're just a Trump apologist and you're just... You know, this has been my whole career. And I'm saying, 'No.' By the way, sometimes they're right. Right? And so being able to dismiss yourself from your political biases is a huge advantage. Hard to do but a huge advantage.

Don't get older. Well, it was just... We haven't gotten any older.

Oh, don't go to Harvard.

And I would add, cuz I echo all that. I would add it's... you're going to look back as you get older and realize it was about the journey rather than the destination because the destination keeps changing. And I look back on my career and I thought a particular moment, a particular exercise was about the exercise, which it was, but gee, that's how I became friends with Sam Zell. Or that's how I became with so forth. And that's what it was really all about. So that's one. It's the journey, but make it a worthwhile journey and try to pick interesting places to go. That's one. Second is nothing is beneath you that's legal and not immoral. If it's legal and not immoral, nothing is beneath you. And related to that, over my career, if you do good work consistently on everything people ask you to do in this economy and what in our world, if you will, somebody's going to notice. And they're going to give you a chance. If you get a chance, say yes more often than no, which most people don't do. And the second is understand that being able to do things well consistently is a rare skill and will differentiate you. And if nobody has noticed you're doing that after a year or two, go look in the mirror and ask yourself, 'Am I doing as good a work as I think I am?' And if not, how do I change? But if you do good work, someone is going to notice and give you an opportunity... may not be the opportunity you were wanting. May not even be the opportunity you thought you were going to get. I'm sure all the speakers, I'm sure you... somebody noticed and gave you an opportunity you didn't even know was an opportunity at first.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.