Home Blog

UK Artificial Intelligence Funding Rockets Higher


UK artificial intelligence (AI) funding rocketed higher in the first six months of 2026, according to research from Traxcn.

The report says that from January to June of 2026, UK AI firms raised $9.6 billion, a dramatic increase compared with the same period last year, when AI firms raised $2.1 billion. Funding this year also trounced the second half of 2025, when AI firms raised $2.5 billion.

Much of the funding was driven by just five firms, which accounted for $8.1 billion in the first half of the year. The top funding companies were: Isomorphic Labs ($2.1 billion), Nscale ($2 billion), Wayve ($1.2 billion), Ineffable ($1.1 billion), and FluidStack ($843 million).

While the funding for UK AI firms grew significantly, the amount raised pales in comparison to other markets. In the US, $302.1 billion was raised, in Europe $13.6 billion, and in China $11.9 billion.

The total raised during the period, according to the report, was $331.1 billion.

The report states that Y Combinator, Entrepreneur First, and 20VC Fund were the most active Seed investors in the first half of the year, and Index Ventures, Octopus Ventures, and Google Ventures led Early Stage investments. SoftBank Vision Fund, Eclipse, and Atomico were the most active Late Stage investors.

There were 6 AI firm acquisitions in the UK during the first half of the year compared to 7 in the first half of 2025.

Transactions included TrueFoundry’s acquisition of Seldon, Coupa’s acquisition of Rossum, Cpgrp’s acquisition of Recycleye, Radiant’s acquisition of Ori, and Keyloop’s acquisition of Motortech.

Companies acquired in the first six months of 2026 had raised an average of $69.8 million prior to acquisition, compared to $52.0 million in H1 2025.

The average time from first funding to acquisition increased from 6.3 years to 7.9 years.

It should come as no surprise that London accounted for 98% of all UK AI funding in H1 2026.

While other AI funding reports use different numbers, UK funding of AI firms is dramatically lower on a per capita basis compared to the US. One report puts it at $1,040 per person in the US versus $170–180 per person in the UK.

When you look at the UK compared to other European countries like France and Germany, the UK has a clear lead. The UK also leads European countries in overall tech/startup funding.

This disparity in AI funding shows there are both challenges and opportunities for the UK.

 

 



Billionaire Mark Cuban Just Warned Nvidia’s AI Financing Could “Crumble” the Market. Should Investors Be Worried?


Billionaire Mark Cuban’s warning that Nvidia‘s (NVDA +2.27%) aggressive artificial intelligence (AI) financing could “crumble” the market is one investors should take seriously. This isn’t because Nvidia is suddenly a bad business, but because its AI financing has quietly turned it into a central node in a very leveraged, very interconnected system.

Image source: Getty Images.

Cuban’s point is pretty simple. In his July posts, he compared Nvidia’s role in this AI boom to the IPO machine of the dot‑com era, arguing that “instead of IPOs, Nvidia is the IPO, funding everyone and anyone.” By offering financing, revenue‑sharing, and minimum‑revenue guarantees to data center operators and neoclouds, Nvidia is effectively subsidizing customers’ GPU purchases and build-outs. That makes sense if demand keeps soaring and everyone can pay their bills. It could be fragile if even one big customer stumbles.

Nvidia Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(2.27%) $4.97

Current Price

$223.96

Under the hood, there is a lot of “creative” money at work. Nvidia has already committed more than $40 billion to AI investments in early 2026, including huge stakes and financing packages tied to OpenAI, Corning, and Iren. Deals like the proposed $100 billion OpenAI data center plan and multi‑billion-dollar SPV structures for xAI rely on GPUs as collateral, long‑dated lease obligations, and assumptions about AI revenue that are still unproven. Legal analysts are already warning that AI data center funding involves layered private credit, securitizations, and off‑balance‑sheet vehicles where distress in one node can propagate across banks, insurers, and pension funds.

Investors should take Cuban seriously

Cuban’s “crumble” language goes straight at that. If Nvidia is deeply intertwined with hundreds of operators who all borrowed to buy its chips, then a misstep — weaker AI demand, a faster‑than‑expected hardware cycle, or a rival chip breakthrough — could expose the fact that too much infrastructure was built too fast. GPUs depreciate faster than many models assume, and Nvidia itself has moved to a one‑year upgrade cadence, which raises the risk that collateral won’t hold its value if the cycle slows.

From a market‑wide perspective, the problem is not just Nvidia’s equity price. It is that Nvidia’s financing has become a pillar of the AI build-out, with junk bonds, SPVs, and private credit all leaning on the same bet. If those bets go wrong, you could see credit stress spread far beyond tech stocks into lenders and institutions that financed the data center boom.

So yes, I think investors should take Cuban’s warning seriously. Nvidia is still a phenomenal business, but the way it is now funding AI infrastructure means everyone exposed to this theme needs to think not just about earnings, but about counterparty risk and leverage across the ecosystem, especially if you own the lenders as well as the chips.

Rocket hits record market share despite toughest spring in years


Adjusted net income came in at $441 million.

Purchase market share climbed to a company record of 6.2%, up from 5.5% in Q4 2025. Refinance market share rose to 14.3% from 12.2% over the same period, also a record.

Mortgage rates moved higher through May and June, depressing what is typically the strongest buying season of the year.

Broker channel growth comes at a cost

For independent mortgage brokers, the quarter’s most revealing figure was Rocket Pro’s 0.69% gain-on-sale margin. That’s well below the 4.13% direct-to-consumer margin and the 3.11% blended margin across non-correspondent originations. Rocket Pro closed $11.1 billion in loans during Q2.

Brian Brown, president and chief financial officer at Rocket Companies, confirmed on the earnings call that the compressed margin reflects pricing incentives tied to the Compass real estate brokerage partnership, unveiled at Ignite26 earlier this year.

Barclays initiates Standard Nuclear stock with overweight rating




Barclays initiates Standard Nuclear stock with overweight rating

GnG Day 1 | Nature and Significance of management | Business studies | Class 12 | Must Watch 🔥🔥



GnG Day 1 | Nature and Significance of management | Business studies | Class 12 | Must Watch 🔥🔥

#commerce #gng #rajatarora

source

He’s Making Over $100K/Year Cash Flow with Small, Affordable Rental Properties


Nathan Nicholson was the top salesperson at his company but had very little to show for it. His retirement fund? It wasn’t doing anything for him today, so he did something most would call “crazy”: he cashed it out. And it was the best move he could’ve made, as it’s helped him buy 23 rental properties and generate well over $100,000 a year in true cash flow!

Nathan’s using an investing strategy that any investor can copy: buy small (and affordable) properties, fix them up, and rent them out. It’s simple, it’s boring, and it’s exactly how he’s making six figures in annual cash flow. But there’s another wrinkle to Nathan’s story: he only lives on his W-2 income, which means 100% of his rental cash flow gets reinvested back into his business.

Now, he’s focused on optimizing his properties for even more cash flow, and in this episode, he shares the four levers he’s pulling to do just that. Whether you’re looking to scale your real estate portfolio or stabilize the properties you already own, Nathan’s slow, patient, conservative approach to real estate investing is a winning formula in 2026!

Dave:
When Nathan Nicholson cashed in his 401k to start buying real estate, people told him he would fail. They said he’d lose everything. But today he owns 23 rental properties generating more than $100,000 in annual cash flow. Nathan was 33 and the top salesperson at his company, but years of top performance still left him with only $30,000 in his savings account, hardly enough to dream about retirement. So Nathan liquidated his retirement fund and he started buying rental properties in his hometown of Louisville, Kentucky. They were little brick houses, most of them under a hundred grand. That was 13 years ago. Now, Nathan generates six figures every year after all his bills are paid and his financial future is secure. It’s a simple formula. Buy the smallest house possible, fix it up, and watch the monthly rent checks roll in. Nathan’s approach is so boring that he actually calls himself the tortoise, but don’t let that confuse you.
This strategy absolutely works. And today he’s sharing his exact repeatable formula. The one rule he never breaks, how he’s managed to pay off 10 properties even as he scales, and how he’s pivoted his strategy for 2026. What’s up everyone? I’m Dave Meyer, chief investment officer at BiggerPockets. Thank you all for being here. We got a great show for you today. We’re bringing on Nathan Nicholson, who is one of the most popular BiggerPockets guests in 2025. You can hear his full story by going back and listening to episode 1132 from last June. But today he’s back with an update what he’s been up to, how he’s pivoting to make the most of current market conditions. So let’s bring on Nathan. Nathan, welcome back to the BiggerPockets Podcast. Great to have you here.

Nathan:
Yeah, thank you for having me.

Dave:
Some of our audience may not have listened to your first appearance here on the show, so maybe just give us a little bit of background about yourself and your investing career.

Nathan:
Yeah, my investing career, I mean from the prior podcast, it was how to basically make money with $100,000 or less rentals in all honesty with you. And so realistically, my beginning has kind of happened with me really just realizing I have to do something different at the age of 33 being a top salesperson and only having about 30 grand in my checking account going, “Man, if I’m really good at sales, what do I only have $30,000 in my checking account?” And going, “What can I do?” And I had a couple friends of mine basically talk about real estate investing and what they were doing. And so I sold my 401k off, took every penny I had, had a dream to say the least, and put all my money into real estate at that time and just kind of been doing it ever since. So that’s been about 13 to 14 years at this point.

Dave:
Tell us a little bit about what your portfolio looks like here today.

Nathan:
Yeah, I mean, from the last time we spoke, it’s grown a little bit. I’m sitting at 23 properties, all single family residence at this point, and about to pay off my 11th house, so I’ve got 10 free and clear.

Dave:
Oh, wow.

Nathan:
And I literally sent the wire on Friday, so I’m paying off a little two bedroom house that’ll net me about 600 a month. But beyond that, I mean, as far as my breakdown, my rents have gone up. My total cashflow has been going up because I’ve been trying to surify my property business, but my rents are at about 311,000 right now. Total cashflow. Wow. That’s total in is 143. And my true net, which is what I go by, I don’t say cashflow, I’ll go by true net. True net is $112,000 right now. And I think the last time we spoke, it was about a hundred.

Dave:
Is it fair to say then then you reinvest 100% of your cashflow back into some sort of business, even if it’s not, for acquisition of your next rental?

Nathan:
100%. Yeah.

Dave:
Is that hard for you? Do you ever get tempted to just live off of it or you’re still in growth mode?

Nathan:
I mean, I’m the tortoise investor, right? I’m very conservative. So to your point, I’ve thought about it. I’m 46 years old. I would love to retire at 55. I mean, I could probably retire now, but at the same time, it’s one of those things where it’s like, I haven’t really accomplished really what I want to do yet. I think most investors will tell you the same thing. It’s like I have not reached that spot and that spot is coming, but yes, that’s what I’m going towards. But at 55, I think I’ll be there. I really want to be at 30 doors and have about 20 of them paid off before I really go full on real estate. And that’s at about 55 for me.

Dave:
Okay. I love the goal. It seems very achievable and you’re well on your way. Maybe before we talk about just what you’ve been up to recently, you can remind everyone how you got here because this is where most people want to get to. 10 paid off rentals, incredible, nine grand a month in cashflow. Amazing. What was the primary strategy you used to get your portfolio to this size?

Nathan:
Being really safe is the best way to put it. I took a little bit of leverage in the very beginning. I took quite a bit of risk. I cashed out my 401k. A lot of people would tell you not to do it, but if you don’t have any money, it’s the only thing that you could use. You might as

Dave:
Well do

Nathan:
It because it’s the only thing you got available. And that’s what I did, and it was very risky. And a lot of people told me that I would fail. I mean, it’s weird how your friends and people around you will say, “You’re going to fail, you’re going to lose everything.” But in situations like this, if you believe in yourself, it really does help. And I mean, 13 years, 14 years ago, that was the catalyst. It was a dream and that and me cashing that 401k out and just playing it very conservative. I mean, I’m a tortoise. I mean, you’ll hear people use this analogy, turtle or the hair. I literally will not move forward unless I have cashflow to cover my expenses. And so I’ve really stayed true to that. And so that goes back to the first property. If you only make 300 a month, well, that’s 3,600 a year.
What do I do with that? And you leverage it to 7,200 to 11,000 to 12,000 to 15,000. You keep slowly pushing that forward. And that’s very beneficial. But that’s why I’ve been able to do this at the rate that I have and actually have 10 to 11 paid off properties is because of following that same process.

Dave:
I love the philosophy. Subscribe to the same one myself. It sounds patient and slow. And you’re saying all the things I agree with that you should be slow and just take your time with it. But it’s really not that slow. You said you’ve been doing this for 13 or 14 years. Going from where you were, which sounds like not a necessarily terrible place financially, but not where you wanted to be, and not having the level of savings that you wanted, not having the nest egg that you wanted, to being pretty darn close to financially free if you kind of wanted to go in that direction in 12, 13 years. That’s incredible. It takes most people – That’s

Nathan:
Very fast, actually.

Dave:
40 years plus to do that if you do it at all. So many people never accomplish that. So I think what we’re saying is patient in real estate is still faster than almost any other avenue to pursue this kind of financial security.

Nathan:
Agree fully.

Dave:
Nate, tell us a little bit about how you did the financing because you said you started with 401k, you cashed that out, you can’t buy 22 properties in that. So were you just saving in between acquisitions and reinvesting cashflow or was there something more you were doing?

Nathan:
In the 401k, I started buying the houses with cash upfront because my concept was a domino effect. I wanted the dominoes to fall in a way that made me more money. And also like a cat with a laser pointer, I wanted to have a toy to play with because I didn’t know what I was doing. I literally did not know. And so the best course of action was to pay off my first house and it was an estate sale for about $40,000, give or take 38. And I paid it off cash and it was livable. And then once I started running out of that cash, I started putting 20% down and I was doing renovation loans. Those are 203Ks in the mortgage world. A lot of people use those, and that helped me out with a couple of them at the very beginning. But then what I realized real quick was I wanted to have a better kind of loan set.
And so I started doing single family residence and using my personal credit and putting 20% down. So I’m a staunch proponent of 20% down. It’s almost one of the only ways you could cashflow a property properly right now is with 20% unless you get a really good deal on a bird deal that you’re doing.

Dave:
You’ve never gone and raised outside capital. You’ve just figured out a way to do it with a W-2 income – Correct. Saving and relationships with banks. You were able to just over 13 years build a very impressive portfolio, sort of the old-fashioned way.

Nathan:
The old-fashioned way. Yeah, correct. And I know a lot of people that do raise capital, and that’s a very good way to go about it. That’s your lending structure. But what I figured out is you have to be a cash buyer to get these houses these days. And so my whole motivation once I figured that out was to pay my properties off as fast as I could because unlike a HELOC or a line of credit on a personal house, you could put it on your home and use it to buy houses and have that liquid, but you could also get business lines of credit, and that’s kind of my focus of what I’ve done. So every time I pay a property off, I refinance it and put it on my line. It has zero money on it, but my line of credit might increase like this property I’m about to pay off, I’ll get another extra $100,000 on my line of credit.
And then I have a million dollars in a line of credit on 10 properties individually in the line, and I could use that to buy houses as my own bank technically. That’s how I got around crowdfunding is literally doing it that way, slow and steady, but you can absolutely do that if you just take your time.

Dave:
We got to take a quick break, but when we come back, Nathan, I’d love to talk to you more about what you’re up to today and how you’re making deals and your portfolio grow even during these challenging market conditions. Stick with us, we’ll be right back. Welcome back to the BiggerPockets Podcast. I’m here with investor Nathan Nicholson talking about his impressive career he’s built in Louisville, Kentucky over the last 13, 14 years. Now we’ve alluded to it a few times. Everyone here listening to it knows it. The market has changed. It’s different. And so tell us a little bit about your approach here in 2026. The

Nathan:
First thing I would tell you is I only really focus on a 1.3 DSER now.

Dave:
And

Nathan:
That is the very true number. That is kind of your new 1% rule is the best way to put it. A 1% is usually breakeven. 1.3, you’re going to make a couple hundred dollars off of it a month.

Dave:
And for everyone listening, if you’re not familiar with the acronym, DSER stands for debt service coverage ratio. It measures your debt service, basically what you’re paying to your loan company every month versus your income. Different investors have different targets, but it sounds like, Nate, yours is a 1.3. Some banks will lend on different ratios. 1.1 sometimes 1.2. Nate looks for 1.3. If you’re interested in getting a DSCR loan, there’s all sorts of benefits to it. You don’t have the same level of underwriting. Sometimes it can be a lot quicker. If you don’t have a W-2 income, you don’t have necessarily the credit that most banks are looking for. These are loans that are underwritten like commercial loans, but are specifically designed for people like us. These are loan products created for our kinds of investors. If you are a pro member, we do have discounts on DSER loans.
You can go check those out from Kiavi at biggerpockets.com/pro. Go check those out. So Nate, 1.3, right? So that’s your number. That’s getting you cashflow in Louisville. You finding 1.3 deals in Louisville right now?

Nathan:
Not really.

Dave:
Even though you’re not finding it, you’re holding the line at 1.3. That’s correct. So you’re not buying it still unless it’s the 1.3, that’s the way you got to do it.

Nathan:
Yeah. You don’t want to lose money. And so a lot of people will tell you appreciation is an approach, and it is. It really is. I mean, you could get a 1% rule house, break even on it. It could have low CapEx because it has new features if you’re doing a bur or whatever that you’re doing, new floors, whatever. But at the same time, if you’re barely making it and you have, I had a house, a rat house, I call it the rat house. It cost me $27,000 to repair this house. So a normal person wouldn’t be able to absorb that. That’s a huge

Dave:
Hit.

Nathan:
And without cashflow, I would’ve been hurt or anyone else would’ve been hurt. So yeah, the 1.3 rule is really steadfast in my mind because that’s what’s gotten me here. I’ve really followed this approach from day one. But the other thing is the creative finance angle is some people like sub two. I personally am not a sub two person. I know a lot of people that have a lot of positive things that have happened to them by doing sub-two. I personally like owner financing on free and clear properties. I like doing the tricks that I just gave you with commercial financing. I like these little tricks because I’m in control. That is the one thing. At sub-two, you don’t always have control. The ways that I’m telling you, you have control. Your name’s on the personal guarantee. You own the property, stuff of that nature.

Dave:
This makes sense to me. First of all, your affinity to seller financing over sub two makes sense to me given just what you’ve told me a little bit about your risk tolerance in real estate. Yeah, exactly. I am not a sub-two expert, but there is some gray areas in sub-two that add risk. And it might be right for some people, presuming that’s done ethically and legally. There still are some gray areas and those are things that you need to consider.

Nathan:
That is correct.

Dave:
When you do seller finance, if someone owns a property outright and they’re writing you a loan, that is very low risk, very high upside in my opinion. And although they’re not the easiest to find, they’re out there. I hear investors doing them all the time. So are you just acquiring those the same way you would do a wholesale? You’re doing direct-to-seller marketing, you’re sending postcards, you’re building websites. And that’s why, as you said, getting in front of the deal, you’re trying to eliminate all the middlemen is essentially what you’re saying. I’ve worked with wholesalers. I have nothing against wholesalers, but they’re charging a fee for their service as they should. It’s a business. And I’m paying that fee. So I don’t get the best possible price on that property because me, Dave Meyer, I am not willing to do the direct-to-seller marketing. I just don’t do it.
But you are saying by doing this direct-to-seller marketing, you’re getting 10 grand off every single deal, which is hugely appealing. So maybe Henry talks about it a lot on the show, but what amount of effort does it take you to do this direct-to-seller marketing? And what amount of money does it take you to do this direct-to-seller marketing?

Nathan:
I don’t spend a lot on the marketing. It’s more for material like postcards, getting list created, stuff like that, AI to generate lists. And a lot of that stuff you could do very semi-cheaply. I mean, postcards, I just put an order in for 500 postcards and they’re very niche, very specific. I design them myself. I do a lot of the work myself actually is the answer. And so I design my postcards, I put all the effort into it, I make the calls, I mail them out, I pay for the stamps. But in regard, the only other effort that’s there is disposition. It’s really just getting the information, calling the lead, having them call you, introduce yourself, and then handing them off to a partner that could do disposition. So really my focus is on less external effort because I’m a growth manager for a large company and I’m very busy doing that.
And also the fact of risk. Flipping would make more money, but it’s risky currently and wholesaling is actually less risky than flipping currently.

Dave:
It is. Yeah.

Nathan:
And it also gives me the time with my kids because I have two very small kids that are in travel sports. And if anyone knows anything about travel sports, oh my God, that’s a lot of work.

Dave:
Taking all your time.

Nathan:
That’s right.

Dave:
So just to prove that, I mean, Nathan’s telling us that this is possible. If you want to go out and get the best possible prices, these are things that you can absolutely do. We’re not going to get too much into the tactics here today, but we have tons of great episodes. Nathan obviously has some good advice. We had a recent episode with Andy Gill who was talking about this. Henry talks about it all the time, but this is just a way that you can absolutely get good deals right now in this current market. It’s absolutely something that you should consider.

Nathan:
Absolutely.

Dave:
Nathan, one last question on this. Have you bought anything recently?

Nathan:
Yeah. Yeah. So there’s two deals. One of them was a property that I got in late fall, and it was the property I was referring to a little bit earlier. It was a four-bedroom house. Rotor was trying to sell it, $125,000. I already had the drive-by done on this property, and I purchased it. And anyway, to praise for about $170,000, 175, which allowed me to immediately –

Dave:
Oh my God. I purchased

Nathan:
It with no money out of pocket. So you’re

Dave:
Just walking into 50 grand in equity on that?

Nathan:
Yeah, like almost 25,000. Yeah, right out the gate. And it didn’t make any money due to the current rent with the tenant, but in the last six months, I have raised the rent twice. That’s very not normal, but I had to start making money on this property. I was losing about $100 a month and he was paying 800, and now he’s at $1,400. So now I’m making about $400 net a month after expenses in a period of six months with no money out of pocket.

Dave:
Is that 1,400 what market rent should be?

Nathan:
So actually it’s lower than market rent. And I’m trying to help the family out. I met them when I walked the house and everything, and they’re good people and they maintain the house. So I told them 1,400 was 200 less than what he would spend anywhere else, and he agreed. And so I left it there. And I didn’t want to lose him. He’s a good, hardworking guy, and I didn’t want to disrupt his family, but I did let him know that obviously this is the pro and economy being an investor. I let him know I have to make money and this is where I need it to be. And he was able to do that, so it worked out.

Dave:
So clearly you figured this out, and these are repeatable things. These are things that really everyone listening to this podcast can go out there and do. Now, Nathan, you mentioned you’re not just looking for new deals, you’re also trying to optimize your business and to make more out of what you already have, which is the name of the game right now. I mean, I always want to go out and buy more, but there’s so many things going on in the market that make it increasingly important to pay attention to your operations. What are some of the strategies and tactics you’re using to better your performance of the stuff you already got?

Nathan:
Shoring up the business is, I would say, one of the top priorities that I had this year and on my board behind me is making sure that my business is running efficiently and that I can maximize cashflow because again, I’m trying to find ways to scale and build. So to your point, I mean, if my rents are $311,000 right now and my net cash flow is 112, well, the math that I did based on these four things that I’m going to tell you that I’m doing to shore up my business will increase my cashflow by almost 30 to $40,000. That’s not a small number. I mean, that’s a lot of money.

Dave:
I mean, if you think of it that way, that’s the equivalent of buying five, eight more houses. Absolutely. Everyone’s focused on acquisitions. Just make your existing stuff do better and you don’t have to take on as much work or figure out the financing or go out and find the deals. So I see the motivation there, 30, 40%. I get it. How are you doing it?

Nathan:
There’s four things that I’ve really been trying to focus on right now. And it was property management, trying to figure out a way to get my costs lower, which at the time I was paying 12%.

Dave:
Oh, that’s high.

Nathan:
But I did move property managers and I saved 4%. So right now I’m

Dave:
Paying

Nathan:
Eight on my portfolio, and I feel like that’s fair compared to everyone in the Louisville marketplace. And so I save 4% on $300,000 of rents. I mean, that’s a huge amount of money.

Dave:
How did that conversation go?

Nathan:
It is a hard discussion in general because it was very hard moving my properties. Let’s be real. It was a major ordeal. And so I earn that extra 4% is the best way to put it.

Dave:
But that will pay dividends for years. That’s 12 grand a year that’ll compound for indefinitely. That’s

Nathan:
Right.

Dave:
And most things real estate, I talk about this a lot on the show, you get what you pay for. How has the quality of your property management changed, if it has, since moving to a less expensive provider?

Nathan:
So some things have changed, some things haven’t. I actually feel like they’re doing a really good job at 8%. He’s a local gentleman, has 250 to 300 doors. They’re on top of it. So actually, I feel like I’m getting a lot for my money at this time. There are some different costs that I’m paying currently, but I think they’re doing a really good job in all honesty. And yeah, I do got to do some things outside of it, but at 8%, it’s worth it to me, in all honesty

Dave:
With

Nathan:
You. Yeah,

Dave:
Absolutely. Yeah, exactly. It’s like, is that worth 12 grand a year? That little bit of doing stuff. And it sounds like the answer’s yes. Yes. That kind of sounds like a no-brainer to me. So I mean, that’s a great thing for people to do. Just for our audience listening, audit what you’re paying for property management. Shop around, comparison shop with everything you do these days from contractors to insurance to property managers. Henry and I talk about this. The spread between quotes is astronomical these days. It’s insane. That’s a 50% difference in property management fee from eight to 12%. You’re paying 50% above market rate, and that’s market rate. So you’re even going to a low cost provider. That happens all across the business. Yeah. Stick with us. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to the BigglePockets Podcast. I am here with Nathan Nicholson, who’s telling us about the portfolio he’s built in Louisville, Kentucky.
Talked about deal-finding strategies and how he got started, but you said you’ve really turned your focus to just optimizing and making the most out of your existing portfolio. So you said you were doing four things. Sounds like number one is you changed property manager. What was the next thing you did?

Nathan:
The second thing is that even in a market, and so Louisville’s kind of been depressed in rents, and I think other markets may have this scenario happen as well. There’s just less people renting these houses. It’s kind of wild, but Louisville’s one of those markets. So I still had a rent increase at 3%. So on 23 houses at 3%, that raised me up another $8,000 a year right there. We’ve executed on, I think, 14 of them, and the others have leases, and we’re going to be executing on those in the fall, and they’re still all under rented to the market. So the good news is I’m not above the market, I’m below it. And that will actually give me quite a bit of extra equity and capital as well per year. And so if people aren’t raising rents or they feel like they’re under, I always keep mine a little bit under, but the reality of the situation is try to look to raise because rents have to go up.
I mean, taxes are going up, insurance is going up, liability’s going up. People are destroying houses at a much higher rate now for some reason. I don’t know why, but they were destroying your houses. So you have to ask for those rent increases every year and be very stout about it.

Dave:
Raising rents, obviously, if the market will bear it and it’s needed for your business, it’s something to consider, but sometimes the market won’t bear it. You can’t just say, “Oh, my expenses went up 3%, so I’m raising rents 3%.” If there’s competition in the market and someone can find an equivalent property without that rent increase, they might go do that. So it sounds like though you’ve been able to do that without issue.

Nathan:
Pretty much all of them, except for one house is rented at this point. No one moved. The rat house is what I call it, the one that was destroyed. We put a lot of money into it and I tried to rent it at 1,150 for a two bedroom, 800 square foot in Louisville. And it’s not taken right now. There’s a lot of competition, and the house is updated and fully updated. And so I’ve got it at 1,050 and it’s still not going. So that’s a $100 drop in this market on two beds in the last, I’d say four months.

Dave:
Oh, wow. Okay. So

Nathan:
Yeah, the market is not bearing it at this point. Rents are dropping in this marketplace. So I’m being very cognizant of that when I’m asking for these rents. But if a tenant does come back to me and they negotiate, I’m more than willing to negotiate in between. And I generally do that, but we haven’t had anyone really leave due to that because either it’s too much and they say, “Hey, look, if you could take $50 off of the hundred that you’re raising it, I’ll stay and we’ll just accept it.” So that’s something that we’ve been doing to keep people in there.

Dave:
I think it’s something for our audience to keep in mind, but you have to weigh in this market the risk of vacancy with the need to keep up with expenses because inflation is pushing up everything. Repairs, maintenance, taxes, insurance, everything, right? I agree. And as a businessperson, you have to keep pace with that. At the same time, tenants don’t have to pay. They don’t care what your business. They don’t care that your prices are going up. They have a budget, what they can afford, what they value your property at. And that’s why you just can’t be overly aggressive. You have to find the sweet spot. 3% seems very reasonable to me. That’s basically the pace of inflation, so it’s not crazy. But I sometimes hear people say things like, “Oh, my prices went up 10%, so I have to raise rents 10%.” You don’t have to.
And first of all, you probably can’t. There is a limit to what you’re able to do. So you need to really think about how much the market can bear. And that can be through conversations with your tenants, talking to other investors, talking to property managers in your area. But this isn’t just something like, “Oh, I should go raise rents because I want to.” There is a consideration there, and I think you’re doing a very reasonable job with it, Nathan, and what I would recommend for the majority of investors out there.

Nathan:
Absolutely. All

Dave:
Right. So those are the first two. What’s the third thing you’ve done to help your business perform better?

Nathan:
So I’ve been focused on paying houses off to increase my capital that I could use to buy houses off market. And wholesaling and stuff of that nature, you obviously have to be prepared to have cash. And so obviously the third thing is trying to find ways to pay off rentals quicker. And so what I’ve been doing right now, I actually wired $56,000 to the bank, and I’m paying off a property on Lees Lane that will net me about $600 a month. So if you do the math on that, that’s another 7,200 to $8,000 a year right there to just pay a property off. And generally what I do is I target the ones with the highest mortgage with the lowest cost to actually pay off. And so when I do the math on paying off Lees Lane, it’s going to return right around 10%, which is a really good return.

Dave:
Wow.

Nathan:
And that’s why I’m paying that one off. So that’s the third thing that I’ve been really focused on.

Dave:
Tell me a little bit about just the strategy here, because what you’re saying makes sense. I agree with this approach entirely. But at the same time, you’ve also talked a little bit about how you want to maximize the money you have for investing, right? Correct. And so where’s this philosophy shift? Is it just market conditions? You’re not seeing enough that you want to buy, so you have a little bit extra capital and you’re like, “Where do I get the best return right now?”

Nathan:
So the reason why this makes a lot of sense for also helping me in investing, say, wholesaling or having cash to do that is because when I pay this house off, immediately I’m going to add it to my line of credit. So not only do I get a paid off house that saves me $600 a month, but I’m also going to put it on my line of credit and get an extra $100,000 in capital added to my line of credit, which would be right around a million dollars at this point once I add that. So it gives me twofold. It allows me more purchasing power to not have to crowdfund and just self-fund this myself, but it also allows me leverage to make money while it sits there as well. So it’s twofold.

Dave:
Makes a lot of sense. And you can always refinance it later if you want to either use a HELOC or whatever.

Nathan:
Or sell it.

Dave:
Exactly. So that’s three out of the four. We talked about your PM costs, raising rents appropriately, and paying off some rentals. What’s the fourth thing you’ve done?

Nathan:
My main focus this year is to wait for rates to drop in the five and a half range on either commercial or traditional financing or DSCR. Yavi’s a great place. I mean, Calvi’s a really good company. They do a really good job, and you could use companies like that as well. But the thing is, if you could refinance your houses, say 23 houses, 10 of them are paid off, and I could actually refinance 10 of them. And I have so much equity from the appreciation that’s been happening that I could take that appreciation, pay off another two or three that are free and clear, and still net an extra 100 to $500 a month in cashflow with doing that. That is a huge proponent to what I’m trying to do right now. And if I do that and I do it smart, I should be able to pay off two houses and also save probably about $1,000 a month on that refinance.

Dave:
And

Nathan:
I think that we’ll be in a position to do that.

Dave:
Even if the rate’s higher.

Nathan:
Yeah, even if the rate’s higher, for instance. Yeah, exactly. I think the rates will be in the five and a half to six and a quarter range, but if you buy it down a point, you should be in the realm that you need it, which is about 5.75, give or take to six. All

Dave:
Right. Well, yeah, if you could buy it down, you’re more optimistic than I am about getting into the fives. I’m not so sure about that. I’ll average a little bit more than. I hope you’re right. I hope I’m wrong. Yeah.

Nathan:
I hope we can get there. We’ll see what the market. I mean, there’s a lot of things that are causing issues in the marketplace right now, but the goal that I’ve heard was a 1.5% Fed rate. And so we’re at a 3625, and I’m in the mortgage industry, so this is what I know very well. And so if we’re at a 3625 and we need it at one and a half, I mean, if the rest of the world is at one and a half, we have to find a way to get that Fed rate down. And so they’re really focused on that. So I am really leveraging my gambling hand here to say within the next hopefully 12 to 18 months, that’s conservative. Okay. 12 To your point, if we could hit six, I think you would see a huge amount of people trying to refinance their properties.
And I think that would be very smart for them to do that in all honesty with you.

Dave:
Yeah. I mean, if we get to that rate, that makes a lot of sense to me. We’ll just have to see if we can get to that rate. Maybe 12 to 18 months. I’m not as optimistic this year, about 2026 at least. Yeah,

Nathan:
This year’s rough.

Dave:
Well, Nathan, this has been a lot of fun. Thank you so much for catching us up here. People want to connect with you, where should they do that?

Nathan:
Yeah, I mean, obviously you could find me online. It’s RealEstateNate. Buy, Sell, Rent Coaching is my business in Louisville, Kentucky. You could find me on social media too under the same exact search term. So I’m on social media, I’m on LinkedIn, I’m on everything that you could possibly think of, and also on Google search and stuff of that nature.

Dave:
Awesome. Well, thanks so much for being here, Nathan. We really appreciate you. And thank you all for listening. Again, if you want to check out DSCR loans, some of the things Nathan was talking about and you’re BiggerPockets Pro member, go to biggerpockets.com/pro and check out the discounted rates we have for you and we’ve negotiated for you through Kiavi. Also, if you want to learn more from people like Nathan, make sure to subscribe to the BiggerPockets Podcast or follow us on YouTube so you never miss an episode. Thanks again for watching. I’m Dave Meyer, and I’ll see you guys next time.

 

Help us reach new listeners on iTunes by leaving us a rating and review! It takes just 30 seconds and instructions can be found here. Thanks! We really appreciate it!

Interested in learning more about today’s sponsors or becoming a BiggerPockets partner yourself? Email [email protected].

AARP Expedia Deal: Book 3+ Hotel Nights and Get a $75 Gift Card


AARP: Book 3+ Hotel Nights and Get a $75 Gift Card

AARP members can get a $75 gift card when booking a hotel stay of at least three nights through the AARP Travel Center Powered by Expedia.

The offer is part of AARP’s current U.S. hotel sale, which is also advertising savings of 25% or more at select hotels. Reservations must be booked by August 31, 2026, with travel completed by October 31, 2026.

Offer Details

Here’s how this promotion works:

  • Must be an AARP member (anyone 18+ can join)
  • Book an eligible hotel stay of 3 nights or more through the AARP Travel Center Powered by Expedia.
  • Book by August 31, 2026.
  • Complete your stay by October 31, 2026.
  • After completing the trip, receive a redemption email for a $75 gift card.
  • DIRECT LINK

AARP is also advertising 25% or more off select U.S. hotels as part of the same sale, so some bookings could potentially benefit from both the discounted hotel rate and the $75 gift card.

How the $75 Gift Card Works

The gift card is not issued immediately when you book.

After completing the qualifying stay, AARP/Expedia says you will receive a redemption email from Digital Rewards / Tango Card with instructions for claiming the $75 gift card. The redemption email can take up to 45 days after travel to arrive.

You can redeem for lots of popular brands like Amazon, Walmart and more, Visa/Mastercard gift cards, or even straight cash to Paypal.

Guru’s Wrap-Up

This is a pretty simple AARP travel deal that is especially useful for inexpensive three-night stays.

There is no stated minimum spend on the promotion page, so a cheap three-night booking would get  you a $75 gift card. And some hotels are also discounted by 25% or more through the current AARP sale.

The main drawback is booking through Expedia rather than directly with the hotel. For chain hotels, compare what you would give up in points, elite-night credits and status benefits before deciding whether the $75 gift card makes the third-party booking worthwhile.

HT: FM

Forget DeepSeek. China’s real ‘Sputnik moment’ is happening on campus as American colleges lose edge



When DeepSeek unveiled an AI model last year that rivaled America’s best at a fraction of the cost, or when a Chinese hypersonic missile test caught U.S. intelligence off guard to the point where a top U.S. general called it “very close” to a “Sputnik moment”, the reaction each time was the same: that a handful of Chinese firms had suddenly pulled ahead.

But a sweeping new National Bureau of Economic Research study of nearly 14 million Chinese patents suggests that framing misses the real story—and it’s a more unsettling one for the United States.

Harvard Business School’s Josh Lerner and his co-authors dug into who is actually filing the patents behind the 14 technology areas the Pentagon deems critical—advanced computing, space technology, AI, hypersonics and biotech. The answer: Chinese universities account for more than a quarter of the country’s inventions in those fields, 8x the U.S. rate at 3.3%, with state-owned enterprises and the government accounting for just 4%.  Fewer than one in 10 Chinese critical technology patents involve an inventor with U.S. work experience, undercutting the assumption that Beijing relies on returning U.S. talent for innovation.

Lerner told Fortune his team was “programmed” to expect a few large corporations like Huawei and Tencent to lead the charge on Chinese innovation through patents similarly to IBM and Samsung in the U.S. Instead, they found Chinese innovation in critical technologies “much more diverse—spread out across the parties,” with universities “more represented” there than anywhere else in the country’s patent system. That’s a reversal of the U.S. pattern, where academic patenting is “more of a sideshow.”

“We’ve clearly seen this dramatic boom in terms of research funding and patenting in China,” Lerner said, “and the natural question being is this bearing fruit? In the software side, Deepseek was certainly something that was really not anticipated, and clearly these open-source Chinese models are getting an enormous amount of traction.”

The findings arrive as the quality gap many assumed would protect American tech leadership seems to be closing, with DeepSeek, Moonshot and Z.AI going toe-to-toe with U.S. frontier labs and beating them on cost. 

Using four text-based measures of patent novelty and scientific relevance, the authors found no evidence China’s patent boom came at the cost of quality—Chinese patents have converged with, and in some technologies overtaken, their U.S. counterparts. The share of Chinese critical-technology patents containing “disruptive” technical language jumped from under 2% in the early 1990s to 16% by 2022, closing in on the American share of roughly 20%.

There’s also a seeming difference in dynamics between China and the U.S. with their respective universities, especially as the Trump administration’s international student crackdown strained campuses and raised questions about the future of STEM talent.

The paper describes Beijing’s role as “coordinative rather than directly productive”—steering research through funding and priorities rather than owning the institutions that produce it. Lerner drew a contrast with his own university Harvard’s public standoff with Washington over research funding. 

“When you think about the dynamics between our university and the administration, which has been a lot of back and forth in the courts,” he said, “one doesn’t suspect the same kind of interactions would characterize those between a major Chinese university and the state.”

The U.S. has scaled back its federal research grant pipeline. Last year, the Trump administration moved to cut $4 billion from NIH’s reimbursement of universities’ research overhead costs, capping a rate that had typically run 50-60% at just 15%. By April, the administration had formally terminated 1,392 NIH grants worth $539 million in unspent obligations, while the National Science Foundation had cancelled or suspended nearly 2,000 awards of its own: the Brennan Center for Justice puts total NIH and NSF cuts and freezes at more than $3 billion since 2025, with roughly $1.4 billion still frozen or unresolved. Some of the terminations have been reversed by courts, but the fights continue on a grant-by-grant basis. 

The potential lag in innovation might not be seen immediately, but it could have a sizable effect on competition with China as the Trump administration has proposed steep cuts to federal science funding and a rewrite of federal grant rules that critics — including groups well outside academia, from farm cooperatives to bankers—warn would let agencies cancel research awards midstream.

“You don’t really see the consequences until perhaps years or even decades afterwards, just given the very long‑run nature of this process,” Lerner told Fortune.

While Lerner’s paper highlights the asymmetry in critical technology patent production between the U.S. and China, Dan Wang, a China analyst at Eurasia Group, is skeptical of how far the patent numbers should be trusted: commercialization rates for Chinese university patents remain low, Wang told Fortune over email, and few are filed overseas, while companies like Nvidia and Google drive “exceptionally strong” R&D in the United States. 

The rankings are catching up to the money. In June, Harvard lost the top spot in the Nature Index Research Leaders—a closely watched measure of high-quality research output—for the first time since the index began tracking universities in 2015. Among academic institutions, Zhejiang University (the alma mater of DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng), moved into first place, with Harvard falling to second. Including the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a government research body rather than a university, Harvard falls to third place. Nine of the top 10 academic institutions globally are now Chinese; five years ago, eight of the top 10 were American.

“China is likely to narrow the gap in patent-related indicators, but not in overall technological leadership,” Wang said. “The university innovation system is heavily influenced by administrative process and political mandate, and thus does not leave enough room for self driven research.”

But Wang cautioned that Washington’s fixation on sanctioning a handful of “national champions” in China like Huawei and Tencent overlooks “the real base for China’s technological upgrading”—decentralized networks of universities, suppliers and state-owned enterprises. Wang estimates there are 18,000 state-designated “little giant” firms working on components and materials alone. 

“Sanctioning a few major firms alone is unlikely to halt the broader ecosystem,” Wang added. 

China surpassed the U.S. in total R&D spending for the first time in 2024, investing $1.03 trillion to America’s $1.01 trillion, and has reached via R&D growth topping 14% annually since 2004, more than double the U.S. pace. 

Feel The Club boss Juan Carlos Dominguez talks promoting shows for Shakira – and putting Ecuador on the map for stadium tours


Trailblazers is an MBW interview series that turns the spotlight on music entrepreneurs with the potential to become the global business power players of tomorrow. This time, we meet Juan Carlos Dominguez, founder and CEO of Latin America-focused concert powerhouse Feel The Club and Feel The Tickets. Trailblazers is supported by TuneCore.


Last November, Feel The Club (FTC) partnered with Live Nation on the biggest live music event in Ecuadorian history: three nights of Shakira at Estadio Olímpico Atahualpa in Quito. But getting there required a calculated gamble: FTC founder and CEO Juan Carlos Dominguez faced a dilemma familiar to every promoter. His deal was for two shows — and when the second sold out, he had to decide whether to stick or twist.

“I had to make the decision to do a third one or not,” he says. “If I get another date, I might lose everything that I’m doing on the other two dates.”

The gamble paid off.

“It was amazing,” Dominguez says. “We sold out the same day that we went on sale.”

More than 105,000 tickets were sold across the three nights, grossing $14.4 million, according to Pollstar Boxoffice. The concerts also generated an estimated economic impact of tens of millions of dollars, reinforcing Ecuador’s credentials as a serious market for international tours.

For Dominguez, the achievement validated a theory he’d been pushing for years: that Ecuador, long treated as a market artists routed around, could support the kind of demand usually reserved for the region’s established stadium stops.

“It gives us more confidence and gets into fans’ minds that Ecuador is open for bigger things than just one show,” he says. “Now, I’m sure Ecuador is on the same level for big tours — Bon Jovi, Bad Bunny, Shakira, Karol G, Adele, Justin Bieber — high-tier artists. I’m sure that we can sell two, or even three shows.”

The strength of Dominguez’s conviction is rooted in two decades spent immersed in Latin America’s touring landscape. Born in Panama, he moved to Ecuador at 11 — his stepfather is Ecuadorian — and entered the business in 2001 through dance music, booking electronic acts such as Tiësto and Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike in Latin America while working on Ultra festival shows in the region. He later expanded into arena and stadium touring, where he worked with artists including Metallica, Maroon 5, and Bruno Mars.

This year, Ecuador welcomed Ed Sheeran for the first time (presented by Move & Sight Concerts), while FTC brought Steve Aoki back to Quito and gave The Lumineers their Ecuadorian debut.

Dominguez, who has also lined up Def Leppard in October, and The Strokes’ first-ever Ecuador show for November, says Ecuadorian crowds bring a particular intensity, which he puts down to the fact that seeing major international acts is still a relatively new experience for many fans.

“Crazy,” he says. “For example, Chile, Argentina — of course, their fans are amazing. But this is a little bit more special because it’s the first time.”

FTC has also just confirmed a new venue for the city: Arena Bicentenario, a privately owned, fully covered tent structure at Parque Bicentenario. With a capacity of approximately 8,500, expandable to 15,000-18,000 for outdoor configurations, it is set to officially open in December 2026. The company says it continues to develop a separate, longer-term arena project for Quito.

UN-based estimates placed Ecuador’s population at around 18.3 million people in 2025, but the country’s touring boom has unfolded against a tumultuous backdrop. In January 2024, the government declared a nationwide state of emergency to tackle escalating violence between drug gangs. That measure was scaled back to regional states of exception within a few months, though Ecuador’s government has renewed localized emergency measures repeatedly since. Dominguez says the security situation has improved.

“Knock on wood, this year has been much better,” says Dominguez, who also runs ticketing platform Feel The Tickets. “We’re in a really good position compared to two years before.”

While Ecuador remains FTC’s flagship market, the company’s 2026 calendar stretches across Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru and, for the first time, Mexico, with repeat tours by Ozuna, Hugel, Romeo Santos & Prince Royce, and Martin Garrix.

On August 29, the company will launch its first “original property”: FTC Live al Parque, a one-day festival at Quito’s Parque Bicentenario headlined by Maroon 5, with Yandel Sinfónico, Myke Towers, salsa legends Fruko y sus Tesos and Lost Frequencies filling out the bill. Plans for 2027 are already well in motion.

Here, speaking to MBW from Miami, where he splits his time along with Panama and Ecuador, Dominguez talks through promoting economics, the trouble with rebooking Anglo acts, and why the time is right to launch Ecuador’s next chapter.


SHAKIRA’S THREE NIGHTS SOLD MORE THAN 105,000 TICKETS. HAD ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT BEEN SEEN IN ECUADOR BEFORE?

Never. After the pandemic, we did Bad Bunny — I’m sure I could have sold three stadiums. We did Daddy Yankee, we sold out. We did Feid, we sold out. We did Aventura the year prior to Shakira, and sold two stadiums in the same city for the first time ever — that was our first thermometer. Usually, we did one stadium in Quito, one stadium in Guayaquil. But for the first time, the same artist sold out two stadiums immediately back to back. Then came Shakira.


WHAT’S CHANGED IN ECUADOR TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE?

To be honest, the way we produce the shows, because the standard has been very high since the pandemic. We work a lot with Live Nation, with Loud And Live, with Move. So we need to deliver the best production possible. I was like, listen, we need to raise the bar, and that’s what we’ve done. Every single production manager that goes to Ecuador leaves and says it has been the best surprise of the whole tour — no problems, perfect production, the artist is happy. Even though we don’t have the venues that other countries have, we work it out.


HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE ECUADOR’S VENUE INFRASTRUCTURE?

Terrible. Terrible, terrible. I just bought the biggest structure in the country, it’s like the Yuma Tent in Coachella. We inaugurated it at the FIFA Fan Fest in Quito recently for the World Cup. We have a festival with Hugel on October 16, we have Camilo on December 4, and from December forward our pipeline of events of less than 15,000 people is going to be done there. The rest, we go to the stadium. We have the Coliseo, which is supposedly an arena, but it’s not an arena — it’s a gym, because you cannot hang anything from there.


WITH THE GROWTH OF ECUADOR AND THOSE CENTRAL AMERICAN MARKETS, HOW DIFFERENT DO YOU THINK WORLD TOURS ARE GOING TO LOOK IN A FEW YEARS?

Much bigger, because we’re doing things the proper way. I studied here — I’m American in my thinking, and how I work – you need to give people show business. The thing is, in Ecuador, the production was usually shitty. You would buy a ticket, and nobody would respect your seat. The show started, and people would still be outside. It was very disorganized. And promoters were not promoters — they were people that would get into a casino. If it sells, perfect; if it doesn’t sell, then bye, you won’t see me again. That’s why a lot of fans didn’t trust it — they’d wait to see if the artist actually showed up. That was the modus operandi before. It was a mess until we basically did it the American way. Yes, it’s more expensive, but I’m seeing the results.

I go to the Kaseya Center, American Airlines Arena, Barclays Center, whatever, and there are food and beverage stands everywhere. As soon as you get there, you spend money. It should be the same [in Ecuador] — remember, Ecuador is a dollar economy — but we don’t have that. You have the worst service. It’s a terrible experience. You end up thinking the artist is great, but the whole surrounding is terrible. We’re trying to improve the service, so we can attract more clients. That’s my main goal.


HOW DO COSTS IN ECUADOR COMPARE WITH MARKETS LIKE BOGOTÁ OR MEXICO CITY?

It’s a bit more expensive, because we have to sometimes import the production — certain equipment that we don’t have in Ecuador that we have to bring from Colombia or Peru. That doesn’t mean higher ticket prices — in fact, we need to be a little bit lower than the main markets because of the economic power of the country.

It’s a tricky balancing act. This new government put a 15% tax on top of the ticket price, plus the service fee of the ticket company. Taxes in Ecuador are super high — there’s also a 25% withholding tax on the artist, and 5% for [royalty collection body] SAYCE. It’s tricky, but we find ways to do it.


WHAT CONVINCED YOU THE TIME WAS RIGHT TO LAUNCH A FESTIVAL?

Ecuador was always out of the picture. Then I saw the beginnings of Estéreo Picnic in Colombia — a good friend of mine [from promoter Páramo Presenta] does that. They started to grow, and their leverage and their pull was basically because of the festival in their market — such is the case that Live Nation came and bought them [in 2023]. I remember we would try to get an artist, and they would tell me, “No, we have the Picnic, and we want to work with them,” so they would give priority to the festival, because it was well done.

My idea is to do exactly the same in Ecuador. Maybe not on such a big scale as Colombia, because it’s a bigger market, but a proper scale — a two-day festival, from here to three years, of around 20,000 to 30,000 people per day, that becomes an important festival. We are the number one promoter in Ecuador, so we, as a brand, need a festival.


THIS YEAR’S CALENDAR HAS FTC IN FIVE DIFFERENT CENTRAL AMERICAN COUNTRIES. WAS THAT COORDINATED, OR OPPORTUNISTIC?

That was coordinated. I’m doing Ozuna — he hasn’t toured in ten years, so I’m doing his tour in Central America. I recently did Hugel in Panama, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. I did Feid recently as well. I work a lot in Central America.


WHAT ABOUT PANAMA, BOLIVIA AND VENEZUELA?

Bolivia, I just had Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike in Santa Cruz, and I’m doing Steve Aoki in Santa Cruz and La Paz. I focus more on Anglo acts there. It’s very rare to see big names going to Bolivia — they don’t have the infrastructure, the equipment, and you have problems with money, doing wires from there, it’s very, very complicated.

In Venezuela, I had Andrea Bocelli at the stadium [in Caracas in 2025]. That was massive. I did Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike and I had Gordo, a well known DJ, confirmed for September, but that was before [Venezuelan president Nicolás] Maduro went to jail [in January 2026]. Because of what happened, we are on hold.

Panama, I do very small things. It’s a very complicated market — first, because of the population, it’s very, very small. And second, because it’s a salsa tropical driven market, you can take Marc Anthony and it will sell out, but we lost money when we had Maroon 5, Duran Duran, so it’s a complicated market.


YOU’VE SAID IN THE PAST THAT LOCAL ACTS DON’T SELL, SO YOU FOCUS ON INTERNATIONAL TOURS. IS THAT STILL THE CASE?

Yeah, that’s still the case. It’s not like Colombia. You don’t see many artists coming out of Peru. You don’t see many artists coming out of Ecuador. Go to Colombia, crazy. So yes, local acts don’t sell tickets, to be honest.


HOW’S BUSINESS BEEN OVERALL THIS YEAR?

I would say ticket sales have slowed for the past two years. You have the big tours that, of course, sell out — but it’s one or three tours, no more than that. The rest, we have to work. Tickets are not selling as before. That’s the reality, 100%. I would say it’s always a curve: 2022, ’23, ’24 and ’25 was a peak. Now, I think things are stabilizing a little bit more. The economy is not as [strong]. There’s a saturation of shows as well that you didn’t have before — I don’t know if it’s because everything you promoted these past three years would sell well, but there are promoters and artists everywhere. I think that has also affected ticket sales, because you have too many options.

HAVE YOU LEARNED ANY HARD LESSONS FROM SHOWS THAT DIDN’T WORK?

Yes. My lesson learned: When you book an Anglo act in Ecuador, it usually always works the first time. But if you book it again – let’s say three years after – it doesn’t work. You’ll sell half. That’s not the case with the Latin artists — they go and they go next year and they still book them. I don’t know if the concept is that I already saw them, or if it’s too expensive. But I’ve learned from experience the hard way: don’t book an Anglo act twice in Ecuador. I don’t know why, but that’s been my journey.


IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING ABOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

The artist fees, because not all tours are profitable. Yes, you can have three, four, even five profitable tours, but you also usually do some events that don’t sell. We are very, very tight on promoter-artist margins — if you don’t sell 90% of the show, you lose money, and they’re getting more expensive every time.


WHERE DO YOU SEE FTC IN FIVE YEARS?

Being in the top three independent promoter companies in Latin America. We’re starting to move forward on that.


WHAT ARE YOUR AMBITIONS FROM HERE?

To keep on growing and try to close the best tours possible for the country. When we got The Strokes, [the government tourism body] said, “We love it, how can we help? You can have billboards, you can have buses.” For the first time we are working together. For example, when I do a show, the city opens the metro for one more hour. It’s quite interesting because there were a lot of articles about [the economic impact of] Shakira’s concert: hotels, restaurants, bars, flights… It was incredible what Shakira left in Quito for those three shows.


ARE PEOPLE GOING TO START LOOKING AT ECUADOR DIFFERENTLY?

After the success of Shakira and Aventura, people are already looking at Ecuador. I would say the confidence of Live Nation and managers has gone to the limit. I’m talking about bringing the biggest tours to Ecuador. So yes, Ecuador is going to change, trust me.


Trailblazers is supported by TuneCore. TuneCore provides self-releasing artists with technology and services across distribution, publishing administration, and a range of promotional services. TuneCore is part of Believe.Music Business Worldwide

Chase Is Advertising Mortgage Rates With Nearly Two Discount Points to Keep Them Looking Attractive


Was reading about how Chase plans to hire a staggering 850 new Home Lending Advisors when I stumbled upon their mortgage rates page.

I check rates from big banks and lenders pretty frequently, but was surprised to see their latest offerings.

Instead of displaying rates with a fraction of a point, they’re advertising rates with nearly two discount points required!

For example, a $500,000 loan amount with two points would result in $10,000 in upfront fees.

The idea is you pay more upfront for savings during the life of the loan. But this is unusually high from what I’ve seen in the past.

Big Upfront Points Can Make Mortgage Rates Look Lower

This seems to be a sign of the times. I’ve seen a lot of smaller, online lenders use this tactic after mortgage rates surged higher a few years ago.

But the big banks tend to only advertise rates with some fraction of a mortgage discount point due at closing, such as 0.75%.

It seems Chase is borrowing from that playbook and going with some aggressive point assumptions to display lower-than-market interest rates.

I get it. Times are tough right now and 30-year fixed mortgage rates are nearing 7% again.

This essentially allows lenders to offer below-market rates and keep them looking halfway decent.

However, they require the borrower to pay this prepaid interest at closing to reduce the interest rate during the loan term. And it can get expensive.

For the record, it can make sense if rates are expected to remain elevated or move even higher.

At that point, the borrower who paid a few thousand at closing would perhaps keep the loan long enough to recoup the upfront cost.

But if rates were to come down, maybe due to the conflict with Iran finally coming to an end, it’d be a bad move.

The borrower who paid two mortgage points to snag the 6% 30-year fixed rate wouldn’t be incentivized to give it up.

Even if rates dropped to 5.5%, they’d have to consider eating that big cost if they were to apply for another rate and term refinance.

Do the Math Before You Pay the Points

I recently created a mortgage points calculator to tackle this very issue.

Sometimes it can make sense to pay points upfront, and other times it can be a terrible decision.

Aside from what mortgage rates do after you get your loan, there’s also the matter of tenure.

How long do you plan to stay in the property? If the answer isn’t a very long time, paying points is probably not for you.

If it’s a forever home and mortgage rates likely won’t get better anytime soon (that’s never a guarantee by the way), paying points could be worthwhile.

It might be even more worthwhile if you get the home seller to pay for it via seller concessions. Or the builder to pay for it in the case of a new home.

One last thing though. You should also shop around and see what competing banks and lenders can offer without having to pay points.

Sometimes you can get the low rate (or lowish rate) without having to pay all the points.

The best of both worlds. You just have to put in a little time and perhaps negotiate as well.

Colin Robertson
Latest posts by Colin Robertson (see all)