A Double Debit to Conde Nast Portfolio for offering us an extended portrait of luxury homebuilder Bob Toll as a gutsy CEO who is down but not out, and then following that unfortunate puff piece with another one on how a reporter’s choice to rent a $13,000-a-month mansion he couldn’t afford is emblematic of the housing crisis. Each article has problems of its own, but together they look even worse, and make Portfolio seem embarrassingly out of touch with the realities of the current financial situation.
We’ll start with Portfolio’s cover profile of Toll, which combines two shopworn bizpress formulas—the counterintuitive slant and access journalism—in a single story. Perhaps all these journalistic calisthenics would be worth it if there were a point to this piece. But there isn’t.
This piece opens on a bleak note:
On a bright morning in late July, the corporate headquarters of Toll Brothers, the luxury homebuilder that profited mightily from the latest housing boom, are uncannily silent. Outside chief executive Bob Toll’s office, swaths of cubicles sit vacant and bare, depopulated by deep layoffs. Inside, a Bloomberg terminal scrolls dismal updates: A new report says home prices are plummeting by record margins; in markets like Las Vegas and Miami, they’re off almost 30 percent. Toll Brothers’ stock is trading at about $20, down two-thirds from its 2005 high.
And then some history:
Perhaps no company better symbolizes the engorged consumption of the last real estate spree than Toll Brothers, which Bob founded with his brother, Bruce, in a one-room office four decades ago. During the height of the housing bubble, from 2004 to 2006, Toll Brothers reported nearly $16 billion in revenue, putting it in the top ranks of the industry. Its carefully cultivated brand—large, high-end suburban homes with all the latest must-have appliances—was among the most enviable in the business and catered to the yearning for bigger and better that the era’s easy credit allowed. Although Toll Brothers once had uncanny judgment, it has hit tough ground in the bust.
Okay so far. But then, as the piece veers off this initial course, we begin to understand what kind of story we are in for: The drama of a brave and embattled CEO trying to pull his company back from the brink.
The piece starts to go wrong a few paragraphs in:
Toll offers me no excuses and freely concedes that he made some foolish deals. ‘We boatloaded a bunch of real estate in ’04 and ’05 that is underwater today,’ he says ruefully….Still, as many other real estate executives have headed for cover—or unemployment—Toll is reveling in the self-appointed role of cantankerous spokesman for his beleaguered industry.
Now, given the industrywide—make that countrywide—disaster, this is really the only possible positive take. Why Portfolio thinks that’s worth a cover is unclear.
It also helps, of course, to pass along blame:
In our conversation, he spreads the blame liberally, even pointing to customers, saying it wasn’t the builders’ fault that banks made foolish loans and people took them, knowing full well what their incomes were:’What cracked the market was not just our greed but the greed of our buyers.’
Just to drive home that quote, Portfolio prints it on the cover of the magazine and also as a pull quote in the middle of the piece, with “greed of our buyers” bolded and in caps.
Now, we point out two things. One, that Toll Brothers has a mortgage arm and so is not detached from the financing. And two, that blaming borrowers is not exactly a new strategy.
It also can be easily refuted or at least put into context; this Portfolio doesn’t bother to do.
But we won’t dwell on these details because Toll doesn’t. He’s not that kind of guy:
At 67, Toll is old enough to step aside and let others handle unpleasant times, but instead he approaches the wreckage with grim cheer.
And here we learn the drama around which Toll’s story will revolve:
If all of Toll’s previous experience has offered a single lesson, it’s that the truly big money is made at the bottom, when other people are scared to buy. If he bets right again this time, he could lead his industry out of the doldrums. If he doesn’t, it augurs poorly for the entire sector—and perhaps indicates that the housing situation is even more dire than Toll imagined.
If that doesn’t make you forget Toll’s role in this mess, and root for him, perhaps the next paragraph will:
Homebuilding is an industry prone to spectacular cataclysms. Bob Toll became one of its patriarchs the same way Noah did—by staying afloat through the floods. ‘I think he loves being the grandfather of the business,’ says Michael Greenberg, a former senior executive at Toll Brothers. In the early years, Bob was notoriously prickly and irascible—Bruce was the company diplomat—but age has smoothed his persona, turning sharp edges into charm and bluntness into wisdom. Toll’s conversational style resembles the layout of one of his developments, full of meandering byways and digressive culs-de-sac. He has a broad Philadelphia accent and cultivates an air of disarming schlumpiness. He’s been known to show up to industry conferences in sandals.
Charmed yet?
Before you answer that, you should know that we do get some startling news toward the end of the piece:
Toll Brothers executives say they glimpsed the first signs of a downturn in mid-2005. Analysts started wondering about the company’s position months before that, however, when Toll Brothers insiders began selling off stock. Over a sustained period between December 2004 and September 2005, Bob Toll made $323 million from these transactions, Bruce Toll made $206 million, and other company executives took home smaller amounts. At the time, the sales were explained as diversification and estate-planning measures, and Bob Toll continued to call his company ‘a tremendous buy.’ The sales are now the subject of a federal shareholder lawsuit, about which Toll would not comment.


Let's see, there's the December issue, with a fantastic Michael Lewis cover story... no, not that... there's the November issue, maybe you haven't got around to reading that one yet... no, not that either... I know, why don't you critique the OCTOBER issue? Yes, great idea! Maybe you're going backwards, will you talk about the September issue next? At this rate you'll hit the debut issue some time around 2012, I think.
Posted by Felix Salmon on Tue 25 Nov 2008 at 04:15 PM
I think the SEC has some old reading it needs to catch upon. At least the analysts who follow and rate Toll Brothers stock.
Posted by dlamour on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 02:52 AM
Just reading the sections she gives above and having read the various articles in the New York Times over the past 8-10 months about who was doing what to whom in both the Financial Sector with securitized CDO's etc and realtors talking low middle class adults into a mortgage that "We'll do it this way now and change it later" shows that very few people use common sense to make their decisions and the realtors had no ethics. Too many AMERICANS have been living too high on the hog and now don't know how to scrimp and save. I raised my son and covered my husbsand's bills 90% of the time through the 80's and 90's on teacher's substitute pay--about equal to 1.5 times minimum wage then. There were many times my son had to go without or had to get cheaper items rather than the most expensive as his classmates did. My husband seldom had new clothes unless the ones he wore were torn by overuse. He and I had learned a lot of ways to do without. He grew up in Harlem in the 30's and 40's with nothing and I followed my mother's methods of saving by scrimping and doing without. She got all four of use thriugh college and bought a new hiuse after we left. Now my son is able to get by and save since he learned before, though his college classmates bought $400K homes and are moaning now. I still have to scrimp since my pension is $100 more per month over the poverty level for family of 4. I wonder how many of those mentioned or those "financiers" on Wall Street would like to live on my pay???? I have no sympathy for any one who over built, over sold, etc. Those that bought the "bill of goods" beyond their income will be paying for it all of their lives and very few will forget what they should have known and done when they bought that #700K house. Many of them will rent but the others will be ones we all will be paying for through taxes and charities. everyone had to stop blaming others, clean up their own "houses" and work to get the town, state anbd country back into the "BLACK." Lower incomes, more work and community organizations are a start.
Posted by Patricia Wilson,San Jose Ca,USA on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 02:59 PM
Hi Felix,
We respect your stuff, but I notice your comment addresses everything but the substance of the critique.
If it matters, we praised Lewis's other piece already. But I wonder if this is really the time for business press parlor games.
--Dean
Posted by Dean Starkman on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 03:58 PM
*Everything* but the substance of the critique, Dean? I thought I addressed virtually nothing -- but thanks for the compliment, I guess!
As for business press parlor games, that's my job! And yours! If we lose our business press parlor games, the terrorists will have won!
Posted by Felix Salmon on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 04:18 PM
What can I say? When you're right you're right. Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted by Dean Starkman on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 05:09 PM
I thought that this piece was a good one, but I see Felix's point. This is an old issue, and to conclude that Portfolio "is not getting it," without even referencing later issues (with an excellent cover story by one of the same writers you criticize) strikes me as a bit odd, not to mention unfair.
Posted by George Tumassy on Thu 27 Nov 2008 at 10:42 AM
Who's to say Portfolio doesn't get it? Buy low-sell high, that's every businessman's creed. Buy high- sell low, that's every American citizens creed. Elinor, that should be the point of your criticism-not that Portfolio doesn't get it, but that the American buyer doesn't get it.
Posted by Jim on Sat 29 Nov 2008 at 09:56 AM
This all seems like small beer compared to what seems a far more important question: Was the biz press too caught up in housing-market boosterism to notice or care that the foundations of our entire economy were beginning to quake and crumble? I'm still not convinced that the press did anywhere near the job they should have exposing this thing. Sure it's easy to dig into Lexis-Nexis and pull out a few apocryphal clips showing this or that reporter was onto a piece of the mess. But no one took out a whole section to explain and point up the importance of credit swaps & CDO's, did they? If you knew a major hurricane was coming, wouldn't you do that? But this was far worse and far more important than a mere hurricane. Still, the first I'd heard that there were $62 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding (multiples of the entire equity market) was just a couple months ago. I will still think that this whole episode demonstrates the peril when the press gets too cozy with the powerful they purport to speak truth to and about. Where was the muckraking? Did I miss some fantastic, agenda-setting jourmalism? I don't think so! I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Until then, count me among those who sees a failure of imagination and a lack good old-fashioned skepticism (and not just the blustery fake kind many journalists wear as a kind of uniform) at the core of today's crisis in journalism.
Posted by Andrew H on Sun 30 Nov 2008 at 02:17 AM
you've got to be joking.
the business press is a total cosmic joke. every business magazine and every business cable outlet does the same thing: report around the edges and NEVER look at anything structural. EVER. after-the-fact navel-gazing is just pathetic if it doesn't get to the heart of why all of these supposed expert reporters and editors and publishers couldn't ever ask tough questions when things were "good" (an appellation that i think we can all agree did not in fact fit the circumstances of either the 90s or the aughts). the business press sucks the dick of business when it isn't kissing its ass. that's all it's good for.
basically, the only honest reporting in 90s business was on the fuckedcompany.com comment pages and in the last ten years on various websites. the rest of you were useless and should all retire to a monastery and ask yourselves why you wasted your life and fell down on your job: afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. somewhere doug henwood is laughing at idiots like felix salmon and his ilk--the left business observer may literally have been a rag, but doug was always right adn the rest of you were ALWAYS WRONG. now the rest of us are eating the crap that you couldn't smell under your noses. thanks.
Posted by robert green on Mon 1 Dec 2008 at 12:07 AM
As a person who subscribed to Portfolio thanks in part to the great work Mr. Salmon and company do online, I've got to tell you the magazine is a huge disappointment. Other than the Lewis piece, I can't recall any articles I've really wanted to read. Oddly enough I heard about the Lewis piece from friends and later blog links to the website...I received my print issue about two weeks after the story was already in wide distribution. Finally the graphic density (it looks like a big blob of gray type) makes the entire mag hard to read. The website is terrific. The magazine? I'm looking forward to returning to Fortune!
Posted by Stav on Mon 1 Dec 2008 at 02:29 PM