IBJNews

2013 Forty Under 40: Andrew Held

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

“It’ll be in the arts, from continuing involvement with Penrod to, hopefully down the road, getting involved with another arts organization.”

Age: 36

President, PCD Capital Group LLC


Andrew Held had an impressive law career going—as an Indiana University-Bloomington law student, he clerked for federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Margret Robb before joining Hackman Hulett & Cracraft LLP and then Bose McKinney & Evans LLP in its Real Estate Group.

“I practiced almost five years,” the Indianapolis native and North Central High School graduate said, “and it almost seemed like it was a better fit to be on the business side. Law is a great career, and it’s a tremendous background, particularly on the real estate business side of things.”

So he went to work for School Craft Development LLC developing shopping centers and, to learn more about finance, went back to school at Butler University for his MBA.

In August 2008, Held and several partners started Pedcor Commercial Development LLC. With the economy tanking, the timing, seemingly, couldn’t have been worse. But PCD hadn’t established a niche, so rather than development, it decided to buy assets to seed the company. Most of that occurred in Southern California, where Held spent a lot of time picking up five projects from people or banks looking to unload their holdings. (He still managed to continue his longtime work with the Penrod Arts Fair and be home with his wife and their three children.)

PCD was able to buy around $100 million of assets by the end of 2011, Held said. And as the real estate market normalized, Held and company have shifted their focus back to Indiana. They’re buying the Echo Ridge Apartments on the east side of Indianapolis and have two projects in Muncie.

“To me,” Held said, “it’s all about shifting your focus and recognizing opportunities as they present themselves. We were able to do that. We’re a small group, so we’re able to be pretty nimble.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT