Trend Czar

About the Author

Jonathan D. Miller

A marketing communication strategist who turned to real estate analysis, Jonathan D. Miller is a foremost interpreter of 21st citistate futures – cities and suburbs alike – seen through the lens of lifestyles and market realities.

For more than 20 years (1992-2013), Miller authored Emerging Trends in Real Estate, the leading commercial real estate industry outlook report, published annually by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Urban Land Institute (ULI).  He has lectures frequently on trends in real estate, including the future of America's major 24-hour urban centers and sprawling suburbs. He also has been author of ULI’s annual forecasts on infrastructure and its What’s Next? series of forecasts. On a weekly basis, he writes the Trendczar blog for, the real estate news website.

Outside his published forecasting work, Miller is a prominent communications/institutional investor-marketing strategist and partner in Miller Ryan LLC, helping corporate clients develop and execute branding and communications programs. He led the re-branding of GMAC Commercial Mortgage to Capmark Financial Group Inc. and he was part of the management team that helped build Equitable Real Estate Investment Management, Inc. (subsequently Lend Lease Real Estate Investments, Inc.) into the leading real estate advisor to pension funds and other real institutional investors. He joined the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S. in 1981, moving to Equitable Real Estate in 1984 as head of Corporate/Marketing Communications. In the 1980's he managed relations for several of the country's most prominent real estate developments including New York's Trump Tower and the Equitable Center. 

Earlier in his career, Miller was a reporter for Gannett Newspapers. He is a member of the Citistates Group and a board member of NYC Outward Bound Schools and the Center for Employment Opportunities.

Post a Comment
interesting post! They want to eliminate the existing generous tax treatments, which allow private equity firms to shelter gains from promotes on other people´s money.
Posted by comment_user_455002 | Monday, May 31 2010 at 12:59AM ET
I suppose for the bottom feeder, the opportunity will remain. But for the shopping center owner, or current builder, the change in taxing will create even more pain in any exit strategy than was already being experienced. Focusing on the sharks is fine, and yes they will survive, but the extra 20% in ADDITIONAL taxes factored into the discounts buyers will then expect, is going to create further bankruptcies and foreclosures. If real estate's "recovery" is only to benefit the sharks then the carried interest inflicted wounds should create more blood in the water for them to celebrate. For everyone else, from shopping center owners to tenants, to customers, it is a disaster.
Posted by comment_user_455000 | Monday, May 24 2010 at 1:06PM ET
Whatever the effect on "bottom feeders" and the recovery, long term this new law will significantly discourage real estate development by entrepreneurs. Unlike hedge fund and private equity fund managers who typically risk nothing, a real estate developer will almost always have to provide a personal payment guaranty to the construction lender -- in essence risking his entire net worth on the success of the project. But per the proposed law, he will be taxed at the same rate as the fund manager who assumed zero risk for his "carried interest" and the "carried interest" the developer receives for taking that huge risk will be taxed at ordinary rates--same as the fund manager.

In short, the proposed law ignores the very real "investment" the developer makes in putting his entire worth on the line -- and to that extent will be a significant deterrent to the willingness of developers to assume that risk.
Posted by al adams | Friday, June 04 2010 at 12:57PM ET
Don't you know that everything in the world is determined by tax rates. I would bet that if marginal tax rates we one point higher Bill Gates would never have started Microsoft.

Joe the Plumber decided that taxes would be too high under Obama so he would not buy the plumbing business he worked for since he would not make $250,000 but merely $185,000. So he made the logical choice to stay a $10 an hour plumbers helper.

That makes sense doesn't it? Doesn't it?
Posted by Jim N | Thursday, July 01 2010 at 3:32PM ET
Capital gains tax treatment should be limited to capital invested. Why is this not self evident? Carried interest is not capital invested and should be taxed as ordinary income. Pretty simple, really.
Posted by Dan P | Friday, September 03 2010 at 12:45PM ET