GlobeSt.com: Why RealHound?

Blount: Our name was Database Solutions. I'd walk around at conferences, and no one knew who we were. When we lost the trademark battle, we decided to streamline our image. The name RealHound was wide open. Go figure.

GlobeSt.com: The niche for dot-coms is narrowing. What's your take?

Blount: There's very little money for it. Folks started these real estate dot-coms with grandiose business plans. And after they created their products, the models included all of these real estate professionals herding to their products. But you know what? Real estate people don't herd.

GlobeSt.com: And, of course, RealHound is different.

Blount: We were profitable from the start. We actually started as a consultancy. We worked for folks like Fannie Mae and Grubb and would help them work out their internal software needs. We billed hourly, tucked that money away and used it to build product. So we can have a bad month and it's not going to affect anyone's paycheck.

GlobeSt.com: Are you so self-sufficient that there are no IPOs in your future?

Blount: We'll probably get purchased by someone right after they themselves get IPO capital. We're profitable and we've got no debt, so we're probably not a good candidate for an IPO. The truth is there are going to be very few commercial real estate/tech IPOs.

GlobeSt.com: If IPOs are not going to factor largely into the market, how about investments by consortiums?

Blount: I don't think any consortium can work. Too many hands in the pie, and too many agendas. It creates an environment for finger pointing with no one in charge. If an old-line and profitable company like CB Richard Ellis wants to spin out a tech, they might make a go of it, but only because they can find funding for difficult times. Consortiums come with various partners and all have different agendas and each wants control. And all that will happen is that they'll blow through their money and that's the end of it.

GlobeSt.com: Will the REIT Modernization Act brighten the picture at all for tech investments, essentially providing a new source of funding from now-free REITs?

Blount: I don't see it. REITs now have the ability to do with their capital what they couldn't do before. There would have been more investment in technology when it seemed like the best game in town, but now there are other places to put that money. It actually makes the tech investment picture scantier.

GlobeSt.com: Does that translate into an accelerated downfall for tech?

Blount: I don't think you can accelerate it and more than it is.

GlobeSt.com: So how does this industry progress in terms of its tech needs?

Blount: The tech sector has to concentrate more on yield-management software, something that will help run a property but offers more than property management. They have to focus on software that provides best-practices prompts that will increase the yield of a client's building.

GlobeSt.com: So what you're saying is that new tech has to develop an old paradigm--give the customers what they want.

Blount: Absolutely, and it's amazing to watch. What they want is finesse and relationships. Three years ago there was an emphasis on soup-to-nuts loan-servicing software and it all fizzled. The trouble was that while you could get a loan online, you can't finesse the deal to double what you've made.

GlobeSt.com: Given the failure of soup-to-nuts models and the promise of some sort of economic downturn, what is your prediction for the tech market in '01?

Blount: For ourselves, we keep our expenses low and our margins high, and when we get money we put a little in the bank. That might be old fashioned, but that's how we intend to weather the storm. You know, you can always tell when a recessionary cycle is going to hit. That's when everyone starts agreeing that it will never end. That's the time to get ready. I am real curious to see what real estate tech conferences are still going to be held this year.