More specifically if possible, which neighborhood and asset type? Value add, development or stabilized play?
Wonder what everyone’s investment thesis is regarding the environment we are in today.
You are the President of your own shop and get to call the shots. What city are you buying in?
Phoenix metro.. if I had to get specific, I'd say Scottsdale.
Orlando, Tampa, Raleigh.
High-end trailer/RV parks in/around Phoenix and Boise to play off of the future massive migration out of California once Communism fully takes root.
Brothel in Midland, Texas.
Everyone's assuming they're limited to the US. The best returns are going to be places in the developing world:
Africa: huge population boom and migration to urban areas. Lagos, Ouagadougou, Dar es Salaam, Kampala, Lusaka, Luanda, etc. Near term returns may not be the best, but sitting on land plots for the next decade or two will bring in huge profits, assuming you can keep stability. High risk and high reward.
Central/South America: population already centralized in the urban areas, but rock-bottom prices and similar growth potential to Africa. San Salvador, Bogota, Cartagena, Guyaquil and Quito, Guadalajara, Juarez, Tegucigalpa, Guatemala City are the poor but rising cities. Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Santiago, Lima, Panama City, Buenos Aires are the established players that keep growing. As the majority destitute-poor populations slowly rise into the middle class over the coming decades having footholds in these cities will pay off big time, though similarly unstable risks as Africa.
Personally, Luanda, Dar es Salaam, and Sao Paulo are my top choices for best future returns on investment.
Huge risk. If that was the case, Blackstone would be all over these areas and other funds as well.
Sam Zell also specifically mentions in his book to steer away from the emerging markets. Too much political risk. He regrets entering the Latin American markets etc.
I certainly haven't visited every locale I mentioned, but from the cities I have I can say that it really matters having local connections. These are places where knowing the right governing officials and local power brokers matters, and one won't get far otherwise. If you do have their blessing, however, the fruit is ripe for the picking.
It's almost as if growing taxation/bureaucracy is negatively correlated with population growth...
Atlanta and the South in general. Jobs are rapidly growing down south and people are following. Warmer weather to boast too. Cheaper living. Better taxes.
The rich in high tax states will eventually get tired of being taxed excessively and move down south. As those families move out, the states will have to raise taxes to compensate, forcing more rich families to leave. Some 180,000 families in California alone are responsible for nearly 50% of income taxes paid and nearly 1/3 of tax revenue. Once they start to leave, California will finally implode on itself.
Imagine sincerely believing this
If you had the capital to inject into a location i would say most cities in midwest. Cost of living is super affordable you just need a way to attract talent to build families and populate. The growth that could happen would be incredible. This would require a serious connections to make it attractive but if you succeeded the upside would be amazing.
Yes I was thinking what @SponsorPromote" had in mind. There are a reasonable amount of individuals (famous, successful, wealthy or otherwise) who are from prominent cities in the Midwest (besides Chicago) who could probably motivate a large amount of people to consider the move. It would take time but over the course of 15-20 years amazing things could happen.