Commercial Real Estate Firm

Director at one of these CBRE type shops with 500-1bil in revenue a year wants to talk later this week after I applied to two positions: 1) Investment Advisory related 2) Debt - Analyst . Anyone here work in commercial real estate that can speak to which has the higher upside in terms of faster promotion/salary growth?


Nobody making another Earth anytime soon and population is increasing at an increasing clip so I would say real estate is solid…also unlike paper paper trading, valuating, analyzing…real estate is tough for computers to take over, for now.

Yeah but isn’t it highly cyclical? Likelihood of joining the company and being laid off due to lack of deal flow in a recession might not be so great…

actually whats intersting is urbanization. there’s actually a ton of open space out htere to fit everyone, but for some reason, people like to clump together in a dense area and ignore all the open space. heres some stats:

According to the BEA’s findings, the value of U.S. land peaked at $26.2 trillion in 2006, before the Great Recession, but then fell back to $23 trillion.

Just 6 percent of America’s nearly 2 billion acres of land is developed, Larson finds. But that little bit of land packs a substantial financial punch. It’s worth roughly $11.7 trillion, according to his calculations , comprising slightly more than half of the total value of U.S. land. Compare that to agricultural land, which accounts for nearly half (47 percent) of all land across the contiguous states but is worth just $1.8 trillion. The federal government owns 24 percent of the nation’s land area, which makes up an additional 8 percent of the country’s total land value.

Larson determines that developed land is worth $106,000 per acre, while undeveloped land is worth just $6,500. Agricultural land is also worth much less than non-agricultural land: $2,000 per acre versus $21,000. Federal land is worth $4,100 an acre compare to $14,600 for non-federal land.

Unsurprisingly, the value of land is quite uneven and spiky across the country, as the map below shows. It charts the land values per acre across U.S. counties, with the darkest blue indicating where land is most expensive. The pattern is largely bi-coastal, with land prices at their highest along the Boston-New York-Washington corridor and parts of Florida on the East Coast, and in northern and southern California and up around Seattle in the West.

Land values track metro size, according to the study. Land averages $64,800 per acre in large metro areas with populations of one million or more, compared to $16,600 per acre in metros with less than a million people and just $6,700 per acre in small cities with populations between 10,000 and 49,000 that are large metro-adjacent.

What’s truly remarkable is how little land is developed even in the most highly urbanized states. Aside from the District of Columbia, Rhode Island and New Jersey have the largest shares of developed land, but this amounts to less than a third (31 percent) of all the land in those states. Just one percent or less of land in Wyoming, New Mexico, Montana and Nevada are developed.

A 2012 study by Albouy and Gabriel Ehrlich found that, on average, approximately one-third of housing costs are due to land, though that number can hit as high as 48 percent in high-value areas.

so, they are making another planet like Earth?

This is for all companies in all sectors…you’re always in danger in recession

you never know. they have enough run rate. 100/6. that’s 16x the land they can still use. not to mention that they can build up with future tech and make populatuion even more dense. pop growth is roughly 1%. literally would take us 70 years to double the population.

anyways your point is still valid. since when you talk about real estate u are obviously buying in the dense areas, and since more people are crowding there, the price will rise for the real estate you talk about.