Home Blog

A new framework for monitoring risks in the UK housing market – Bank Underground


Tihana Škrinjarić

In my recent paper, I present a new model that helps assess risks in the UK housing market. Unlike traditional approaches that focus on average house price growth, the model estimates a full range of possible outcomes, allowing policymakers to identify potential risk of big house price drops. The analysis also highlights important regional differences: areas with more constrained housing supply tend to be more sensitive to changes in interest rates. Expanding supply can help ease price pressures. These insights can help improve the monitoring of housing market vulnerabilities and support financial stability policy.

What I do

Analysing vulnerabilities in the housing market is crucial to track financial stability risks stemming from this part of the economy. These developments are significant for banks, households, and firms, as housing represents a long-term investment. Furthermore, mortgages are one of the largest components of the balance sheets and cash flows of both UK lenders and households. However, forecasting dynamics in the housing market is challenging due to uncertainty around future outcomes. To do so, I collect many possible variables and indicators that could help me to predict house price growth from the perspectives of supply, demand, financial, and non-fundamental factors. I examine around 50 different indicators, which makes it the most comprehensive list in the house price modelling literature.

To gauge risks of big future house price drops, I apply a quantile regression approach (Koenker (2005)), and derive a measure of house-price-at-risk (HPaR) both at the national UK level and regional level. HPaR is a low percentile (I focus on the 5th) of the conditional distribution of future house price growth and therefore captures the severity of potential house price declines under adverse conditions. This approach allows me to examine how different parts of the distribution of house price growth – particularly the lower tail versus the median – are associated with changes in key variables, including:

  • interest rates;
  • income;
  • debt burden dynamics;
  • house price overvaluation, defined as significant increase in real estate prices beyond their intrinsic value, often driven by investor expectations that prices will continue to rise, even when fundamental factors cannot justify such valuations (Stiglitz (1990)). This overvaluation refers to house prices rising above levels that can be explained by economic fundamentals such as income, interest rates, credit conditions and housing supply. It therefore captures the part of house price growth that appears disconnected from these factors and is often associated with speculative expectations;
  • supply constraints; and
  • broader financial conditions.

In this way, the framework highlights that the relationship between these factors and house price growth can differ across normal and adverse states, without imposing a uniform effect across the distribution. The advantage of using quantile regression is that it more clearly captures periods of booms and busts compared to a standard linear regression model.

House price growth decomposition

Chart 1 presents the decomposition of the 5th percentile (I call it tail risk) nominal HPaR  growth.  The tail risk component effectively identifies downturns of early 1980s, 1990s, and dynamics of global financial crisis (GFC).

I observe that these declines were explained by different factors. In the early 1980s, the initial drop in nominal house prices was primarily linked to the oil price shock and a concurrent economic recession, followed by sharp increases in mortgage interest rates. The downturn in the early 1990s coincided with both a weakening economy and a subsequent correction in the housing market. While economic activity had already begun to slow before the housing bubble fully unwound, the decline in house prices likely amplified the recession through its effects on household balance sheets, consumption and credit conditions.

This is reflected by a sharp decline in house price overvaluation and compounded by a significant drop in credit activity and transactions in preceding quarters. During the GFC, transaction volumes explain most of the decline, followed by heightened financial stress and a contraction in credit supply. In the most recent downturn, the decline began with a slowdown in transactions, rising mortgage interest rates, and a drop in house price overvaluation. Both the predicted tail and median nominal house price growth have been trending downward since 2016.


Chart 1: Decomposition of nominal year-on-year (YoY) UK house price growth at the 5th percentile shows different contributions of house-price predictors across time

Note: Const – constant, Demand – includes YoY real GDP growth, Financial – includes YoY mortgage rate change, YoY change of price to income ratio, credit-to-GDP gap, CISS – composite indicator of systemic stress, YoY stock market growth, and YoY inflation; Non fund – house price overvaluation, Other – includes YoY house market transaction growth, CCI – consumer confidence index, and EPU – economic policy uncertainty; Supply – includes YoY housing investment growth, and YoY oil price growth.


Chart 1 also highlights a recurring pattern in which periods of elevated house price overvaluation are followed by subsequent corrections in tail house-price growth. This is consistent with the broader literature on asset-price cycles, which finds that prolonged periods of rapid price appreciation and overvaluation are often followed by market corrections as expectations adjust and prices converge back towards levels justified by fundamentals. In the decomposition, this mechanism is reflected in the non-fundamental component making a positive contribution during boom periods and a negative contribution during subsequent downturns. While house price overvaluation is not the sole driver of housing downturns, the results suggest that the unwinding of previous overvaluation amplified several of the observed declines in UK house prices.

Forward-looking measures of house price vulnerability

I calculate several forward-looking risk measures based on the estimated distributions for the one-year ahead model: distance to tail (measured as the difference between the median and tail risk forecasts), and the probability of negative growth – presented in Chart 2.

Distance to tail (left panel) measures the gap between the median and lower-tail forecasts. Larger values indicate a wider dispersion between central and adverse house price outcomes and are therefore often interpreted as a sign of increased vulnerability.

A notable spike in uncertainty is observed during the Covid-19 shock, though it dissipates quickly, as expected. The model is also successful in predicting such periods when house prices would drop significantly (right panel), as indicated by spikes of the forecasted probability series that preceded actual house price drops (grey shaded area).


Chart 2: Distance to tail and its decomposition (left), and probability of negative house price growth (right), one-year ahead

Notes: Left panel shows the difference between the median and tail growth (DTT = distance to tail). Right panel shows estimated probability of house price growth dropping below 0%. Grey shaded area denote periods when observed house price growth dropped below 0%. Estimates at a certain quarter of a year are based on information from the same quarter in the previous year.


What does regional analysis uncover?

Regional housing market vulnerabilities matter for financial stability because risks can build unevenly across the country and may not be fully captured by national indicators. The regional analysis shows that UK housing market vulnerabilities differ substantially across regions, highlighting the value of estimating separate HPaR models rather than relying solely on national results.

A key finding is that demand-related variables exhibit markedly different associations across regions. Income growth is most strongly associated with future house price growth in London, the South East, South West and East Anglia, suggesting that these regions are more sensitive to demand conditions than other parts of the UK (Chart 3, blue bars).


Chart 3: Differences between estimation results between regions

Notes: Bars denote the values of estimated parameters for selected variables, and lightly shaded blue, green, and orange bars denote statistically insignificant values.


Estimates of the relationship between mortgage rate changes and future house price growth vary considerably across the country. Supply-constrained regions, particularly southern and midland regions of the UK, display larger and faster coefficient of mortgage rate changes in the HPaR specification (Chart 3, orange bars). As a result, higher mortgage rates are associated with more pronounced risk of big house price drops in these areas.

On the supply side, greater housing supply is generally associated with lower future house price pressures in most regions (Chart 3, green bars). However, London, the South East and Scotland are exceptions. For the first two, the results align with the findings of Zahirovic-Herbert and Gibler (2014), who argue that in large, built-up metropolitan areas, new supply can lead to higher house prices. This is due to elevated land costs, stringent development constraints, and the potential need for brownfield remediation. Scotland has its own housing regulations and broader housing policy framework, which differ from those in England and Wales (Gibb (2019)).

This suggests that regional monitoring can provide valuable information for financial stability surveillance and policy assessment.

Key takeaways

While national estimates provide useful signals of housing market risk, regional results reveal some heterogeneity across regions. The associations between house prices and factors such as GDP growth, credit conditions and mortgage rates vary considerably across the UK, suggesting that both national and regional perspectives are useful for monitoring vulnerabilities. Stronger economic activity and housing supply are generally associated with lower downside risks, while higher mortgage rates and stronger credit growth are associated with greater risks of large house price falls.

Several limitations remain. Regional data availability is restricted, particularly for macrofinancial indicators, and the model is designed to identify predictive relationships rather than causal effects. Future research could incorporate richer regional data sets, explore housing market spillovers in greater detail, and investigate regional convergence clubs to better capture common housing market dynamics.


Tihana Škrinjarić works in the Bank’s Stress Testing and Resilience Division.

If you want to get in touch, please email us at bankunderground@bankofengland.co.uk or leave a comment below.

Comments will only appear once approved by a moderator, and are only published where a full name is supplied. Bank Underground is a blog for Bank of England staff to share views that challenge – or support – prevailing policy orthodoxies. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of the Bank of England, or its policy committees.

[LA, NY, SC, TX, TN, AR, MS, AL, GA, FL, NC & VA] First Horizon Bank $450 Checking + $250 Bonus


Update 9/23/26: Can now fund up to $2,000 for savings & $2,000 for checking. Hat tip to reader wht4e3v3r

Update 8/4/26: Offer is back until 9/25. Anti churn language is now 24 months (was 18). Savings bonus now requires $3,000 (was $5,000). 

Update 4/7/26: Bonus is back until 06/30/2026. Seems like KY is no longer eligible as there is no First Horizon banking center location there and terms specify that now. We have updated the fine print and tried to update all of the other terms as this is a popular major bonus. If you see anything that isn’t accurate let us know in the comments below. Another big change is that you can’t have had an account in the last 18 months, savings bonus now requires $5,000 instead of $3,000. 

Offer at a glance

  • Maximum bonus amount: $700
  • Availability: Offer is only available to residents of LA, NY (NYC zips don’t seem to work), SC, TX, TN, AR, MS, AL, GA, KY, FL, NC and parts of VA (Bristol, Gate City, Weber City). Need to live within 50 miles of branch. You must be at least 18 years old and a US citizen to apply online
  • Direct deposit required: Yes, $2,000+
  • Additional requirements: See below
  • Hard/soft pull: Soft pull
  • ChexSystems: Unknown, sensitive
  • Credit card funding: Increased to $2,000 for checking & $2,000 for savings.
  • Monthly fees: None
  • Early account termination fee: Six months, bonus forfeit None
  • Household limit: None
  • Expiration date: 3/31/24 06/30/2026

The Offer

Direct link to offer

  • First Horizon Bank is offering a $450 bonus when you open a new checking account and complete the following requirements:
    • Make qualifying direct deposits totaling $2000 within the first 90 days
  • Get a $250 bonus when you open a Traditional Savings account with a total deposit of $3,000 or more in new money within 30 days of account opening and maintain that for 90 days

 

The Fine Print

Avoiding Fees

Monthly Fees

FirstView checking account has no monthly fees to worry about. You do need to opt in to paperless statements otherwise you’ll be charged a $2 monthly fee.

Early Account Termination Fee

Account must be kept open for six months otherwise the bonus will be forfeit This account no longer has any ETF.

Our Verdict

Better than the $400 checking bonus. Based on previous times they have offered this promotion entering your details to be e-mailed a promo code is enough to satisfy the ‘[i]t is non-transferable and may not be combined with other offers’ language. We will add this to our list of the best bank account bonuses. 

Hat tip to reader Bockrr

Useful posts regarding bank bonuses:

Post history:

  • Update 4/4/24: Deal is back until April 30, 2024.
  • Note: Terms state ‘Offer is only available to the addressee of the offer, is non-transferable, may not be combined with other offers’. But this shows up in a google search and you also have to request a code by filling in your information so should be able to get this bonus even if not targeted but YMMV.

Our Favorite Management Tips on Building Influence



<p>A curated list from one of HBR&#8217;s most popular newsletters.</p>

Kalshi’s valuation is $23 billion to $42 billion according to Pitchbook


Since prediction markets exploded in popularity in 2024, the industry’s two leading players, Kalshi and Polymarket, have been raising staggering amounts of money. In the case of Kalshi, the startup notched a $1 billion Series F in May that valued it at $22 billion, and investors are eyeing an initial public offering as soon as next year. But even as the company pulls in gobs of revenue, its business model faces huge uncertainty due to a looming Supreme Court case that raises the question of whether that valuation is justified. Now, research firm PitchBook has put out a 46-page report that seeks to define Kalshi’s true worth.

The detailed report by analyst Franco Granda parses financial metrics and examines the legal landscape confronting prediction markets, and ultimately concludes Kalshi should be valued at $30.4 billion based on expected 2028 adjusted earnings. The report qualifies that figure by forecasting that assigns a $22.8 billion valuation to the company in the event of a bear case scenario, and a $42.1 billion figure for a bullish scenario.

As the following graphic shows, PitchBook predicts Kalshi’s revenue will reach $6.4 billion by 2030, and that the company will pull in $3.7 billion in adjusted earnings:

In an interview with Fortune, Granda shared his view that the company is an enviable competitive position since its main rival, Polymarket, has been able to overcome the early lead Kalshi built among U.S. consumers thanks to a more cautious revenue strategy. Granda added that Polymarket is also spending considerably more on promotions to acquire new customers, and the prediction market industry has become effectively a two-horse race that will see a handful of other players fighting for scraps.

“Third parties will pick up crumbs here and there but the window of opportunity for people to get in has passed,” said Granda. The report, meanwhile, included a graph showing the respective volume for the two industry leaders:

The PitchBook report further predicts that Kalshi will be able to consolidate its lead on the strength of partnerships with distribution platforms like Robinhood, market makers like Susquehanna, and numerous other tie-ups.

Since Kalshi is a private company that is not obliged to publish its financials, PitchBook’s predictions are based in some cases on estimates rather than hard figures. According to the company, its report contract draws on data from Kalshi’s API, PitchBook’s internal data, Dune databases, government filings, management commentary, and public peers’ disclosures.

And while the PitchBook offers a broadly bullish outlook for Kalshi, that calculation is based on a reading of the legal tea leaves that some may view as optimistic.

The Supreme Court wildcard

Prediction markets differ from traditional sports books in that customers don’t bet against the “house” but against anyone willing to take the other side of a yes/no contract. This distinction means sites like Kalshi are typically more profitable than regular betting sites since they are not at risk of losing money in the case of an unexpected outcome.

This business advantage offers one explanation for why prediction market startups have become so valuable. But, for now, they also enjoy what may be an even bigger advantage: a different regulatory regime that allows the likes of Kalshi and Polymarket to pay fewer taxes and court younger customers.

Unlike conventional sports books, which operate on the basis of licenses issued by states, Kalshi and Polymarket argue they are exclusively regulated at a federal level by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This has allowed them to offer their products to customers as young as 18, versus 21 for sports books, and also to avoid paying state taxes.

The problem for Kalshi and others is that their legal case is strong when it comes to prediction markets related to elections, entertainment and so on—but is weaker when it comes to sports. That has led states and Indian tribes to sue Kalshi on grounds that it is allegedly offering unlicensed sports gambling.

This is a major concern for investors since, as PitchBook notes: “The sports dispute threatens Kalshi’s main source of fees, with the category accounting for 69.9% of event fees YTD, rising to 82.4% when including exotics.” (In this context, “exotics” describes parlays and other multi-leg forms of betting that require a user to correctly guess the outcome of multiple different games.)

The issue of whether or not Kalshi and Polymarket’s sports offerings are legal is being hotly litigated in dozens of states and, so far, courts are for the most part ruling against the company. Contradictory rulings from two appeals courts, the 3rd Circuit and the 9th Circuit, have teed up a so-called circuit split and made the case ripe for the Supreme Court, which is widely expected to hear it next year.

While PitchBook acknowledges that an adverse legal ruling at the Supreme Court would be a blow, the report concludes that it would not be existential, noting that “For illustration, a 25% reduction in sports and exotics gross fees would remove $642 million from our 2026 forecast and $1.4 billion from 2030.”

In Granda’s view, Kalshi would be able to quickly adapt in the event the Supreme Court rules against the company, in part by adopting a state licensing model. That view may be sanguine, according to legal experts, however, who told Fortune that the company has angered many state law-makers and that it would be hard-pressed to reconstruct its business model.

A final consideration informing Kalshi’s future valuation is how quickly the company can build out wagers that are not related to sports. The most promising of these is perpetual futures, according to PitchBook, which forecasts net transaction revenue of $50.7 million in 2026, and $275.7 million in 2030—healthy figures but hardly enough to meaningfully offset a total loss of sports-related revenue.

You can read the full Pitchbook report, titled “Kalshi Initiation Report: A prediction market for anything, but its own future” here.

🔴 LIVE: Scalping Bitcoin & Gold | BTC Live Trading | 25th Aug | Markets With Mack



LIVE: Scalping Bitcoin & Gold | BTC Live Trading | 25th Aug | Markets With Mack Join 20 Days Free Live Trading Bootcamp …

source

Which Is Better for Beginners?


Every rookie investor arrives at the same fork in the road early on: single-family home or multifamily. Which one’s actually the better option? The property type you choose first can shape how fast you cash flow and how quickly you’re able to scale your real estate portfolio. Today, we’re breaking down both approaches so you can make that choice with confidence!

Welcome back to the Real Estate Rookie Podcast! We’re covering the real pros, cons, and differences between single-family and multifamily investing, including how your first rental property affects your options down the road. We’re also running deal analysis on a similar single-family home and duplex to show you exactly where the major differences lie and dig into the numbers to see which path actually builds more wealth.

While the decision largely depends on your market, budget, and time, this episode shows you exactly how to weigh those factors against your own goals. By the end, you’ll know which property type will get you where you want to go!

Ashley Kehr:
Should you buy a multifamily or a single family rental property? It’s an age old debate in real estate, and it’s also one of the first decisions you’ll need to make before building your own real estate portfolio.

Tony Robinson:
And one of these properties tends to be more affordable and is arguably easier to manage. The other is more scalable and may even give you more cash flow, but which one is the better long-term investment and which one will actually help you reach financial freedom faster?

Ashley Kehr:
Today, we’re putting them head to head. We’ll break down the biggest differences between the two, weigh the pros and cons and put a couple of real properties under the microscope. We’ll even let you know which one we would buy if we were starting over today. Okay, Tony, single family versus multifamily. What was your first actually? Was it a single family or was it a duplex?

Tony Robinson:
My first was a single family. I’ve actually never owned traditional multifamily property. Every investment that I purchased has been a single family and then we got a mortel. So I’ve never done small multifamily before. And as we all know, yours was like a $17 duplex somewhere that you bought.

Ashley Kehr:
17,000, Tony, not $17.

Tony Robinson:
Okay. All right. I was close. I was close.

Ashley Kehr:
Yeah, my first was a duplex. So the difference between a single family and multifamily is first single family, one household typically. Sometimes a single family can be considered. It may have an ADU or something like that, but it’s zoned as a single family. So sometimes it could be considered a single family, but technically have two units in it depending on how it’s permitted and things like that. And then small multifamily or multifamily property is when there are multiple units so that multiple families, how it has its name, can occupy the property. So you’re looking at a duplex, which is two units, a triplex three, a quadplex four. And then after that it just goes to a five unit, six unit, seven unit, eight all the way up. I would say one of the biggest differences between single family and multifamily is the common areas and just the fact that you’re having multiple families or individuals of separate households living together on the property.
And then the second thing is actually the market value and how the value of these two properties compare in different markets.

Tony Robinson:
Let’s talk about that a little bit and maybe let’s just break down the pros and cons of both sides. I think both serve a purpose in different ways. And maybe we can talk about single family homes first. I think the biggest pro to a single family home is the simplicity and abundance of deals. Simplicity in the sense that almost every single market across the country has a single family home for sale. Not every single market has small multifamily for sale at any point in time. In my neighborhood where I live in Southern California, there just isn’t a lot of multifamily. It just doesn’t happen. There aren’t a lot of duplexes or triplexes. Most of my neighborhood is very suburban sprawl where it’s all single family homes. So we just don’t have a lot of inventory. So for me, I can open up Zillow on any day and find a deal to go underwrite if it’s a traditional single family property.
And then just again, simplicity wise, I think rookie investors can just wrap their heads around the idea of one house, one family inside, one door as a stepping stone for their first deals.

Ashley Kehr:
And as I mentioned, the fact of looking at the market value of each of those properties in different markets, that plays a big role into it as to single families are easier to sell because you have a larger buyer pool. So in my market that I invest in, a single family home has shown more appreciation over the years than a duplex has. Very similar property, but if it’s broken into two units compared to single family home, the single family home has had more appreciation over the years than the duplex in my market.

Tony Robinson:
Let’s talk about that just for a little bit too, Ash, because in small multifamily, maybe not as much, but definitely when you get into larger multifamily, the value of the property is a little less based on comparable sales and more so based on the net operating income. But for the smaller multifamily properties, are you seeing that they’re also using that approach of NOI, net operating income to appraise a property? Or are they actually doing just the comparable sales approach where they’re looking for other duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in the area?

Ashley Kehr:
Kind of depend on the loan product. So if you’re buying it as an investor and you’re getting a commercial loan, they may look at that. But in all of mine that I’ve purchased, they’ve never ever looked at that for a duplex. I have a six unit property and a five unit property, and they did look at that for those when they did the appraisal. But as far as getting appraised to find the value of a property, it is the same as a single family home for the duplex. They’re just using other duplexes as comparison for when they’re doing the appraisal.

Tony Robinson:
Yeah. So I guess that maybe sometimes is another benefit to the traditional single family home is that even just the appraisal part is going to be a little bit easier because there just tends to be a lot more inventory of single family homes they can appraise against.

Ashley Kehr:
And cheaper. Sometimes they charge more because it’s two units there.

Tony Robinson:
That’s true. Even the appraisal itself is a little bit cheaper. Have you been in a situation though, Ash, where they just couldn’t find another small multifamily to really appraise against yours and because of that you felt like your appraisal was impacted negatively?

Ashley Kehr:
No, I wouldn’t say that for the small multifamily. I would say more for my short-term rental actually. It’s two single family homes on one parcel. That’s where I had trouble, but not for duplexes. But if you are in a market where there’s not a lot of small multifamily, then yeah, they’ll probably have to stretch out farther and look at a bigger area. And then you could get yourself into trouble because you could know that where your property is, the neighborhood is really good. But if you’re going out a couple more miles, you know that area is not as nice. But since it’s in close proximity, they could still use that as a comp because when they’re pulling comps, they’re not looking at where the crime is and things like that. They’re just using a radius around that house that you’re purchasing or appraising as to which ones to use for comps.
And I think a lot of us know, Tony, that when you’re looking at a city, and if you don’t know this, you’re going to learn it today, is you’re looking at a city that you could literally turn a corner and it can now be an area where nobody wants to live and nobody wants to be in, it’s in high crime, but around the other side of the street, it’s the best neighborhood that you want to be in. So it can just change so quickly and rapidly street to street.

Tony Robinson:
And I think that’s another benefit too though of the single family home is because there are so many different neighborhoods and there are so many different options, selling the property in the back end can be a lot easier as well because a lot of times when you’re selling single family, you could be selling to another investor, but a lot of times you might just be selling to someone who wants to move in there for themselves. So your pool of potential buyers just tend to be a lot bigger on the backend exit as well.

Ashley Kehr:
One more pro that I really want to highlight too is the management of the single family because when you’re putting together their lease agreements, since they’re the only person living in it, you can ultimately put in there whatever you want them to take care of. If you want them to be in charge of the snow removal, if you want them to do the landscaping, where if you have a small multifamily that has shared areas, if all of your tenants are sharing the driveway, it’s hard to say, okay, you guys are all responsible for making sure the snow is removed. It’s just going to cause fights and cause problems because someone’s not pulling their weight to shovel their little portion of the driveway or whatever. Then you also have to deal with parking. They’re all getting along and parking well if you only have so many parking spots in the parking lot or they have to, in a lot of cities where the driveway is so narrow, you only can park in front and behind each other and then it’s coordinating cars to get in and out when someone has to go to work, the other one has to get up, move their car around.
And I’m speaking of all these examples from experience. So I really like single family that it eliminates a lot of the issues that can come up with having multiple households living on one property and sharing common areas too.

Tony Robinson:
That’s a great point, Ash. And I think maybe we can transition now into the pros of multifamily because it almost acts as like a counter to the pro that you just mentioned because while all those things you said are very, very true, I think that the benefit of multifamily is that if I have four single family homes or 10 single family homes and I’ve got one 10 unit multifamily building, and you can check me if I’m wrong here, but we’ve felt this experience with our single family Airbnbs in our motel, the 13 room motel, much, much easier to manage than 13 separate individual Airbnb properties. And for multifamily, I would assume it’s the same way. Have you seen that experience yourself that the fourplex is easier to manage than four separate individual single family homes just because of everything’s under one roof, you get one handyman who knows the whole building and they can tackle all those things.
Are you seeing the same thing in your portfolio?That’s

Ashley Kehr:
Actually a great question. And I used to manage a 40 unit apartment complex and then I have 40 rentals. I would take my 40 separate rentals over that 40 unit apartment complex. And I never ever thought that I would think that way. I never ever thought that because I always though you have one roof, you have less overhead. It just makes sense mathematically that you have this. Everything under there, like you said, that there’s only one place the handyman needs to go. You have one building. I will say as far as managing the properties, so take the tenant side of the equation, managing the properties, it is 100% easier to have those 40 units under one roof. You have all the information for the building, you only have to remember or write down or have the information for one building. You only have one roof to worry about.
You only have one parking lot to worry about that the property management. On the other side, with me having 40 units, when there’s a question about one of the houses, I have to pull up that information with that house and they’re in different towns that have different laws that has different rules, like garbage pickup days, five different days across all the properties. There’s so much more information that you need to have and keep track of with having the 40 different units separated across. But here’s what I’ll tell you is easier. Managing these 40 separate units compared to the 40 unit building, managing the tenants, it is way worse with the 40 unit apartment building, way worse. And I don’t know if it’s because everybody’s living in one place, but all the disputes and disagreements of managing 40 different households, all trying to share the same hallways, the same dumpster, the same mail room, the same parking lot, that side of it was way worse than what it is for my 40 unit apartments.
40 unit apartment, every single day there was communication of some kind. I probably have in my 40 units probably maybe interaction with my tenants at maximum five times a month, as in that would include a maintenance request. That would include just a message asking about something or talking with them about late rent or an issue or problem that has come up, probably five max. Where at the other, the 40 unit was every single day there was something that needed to be communicated or taken care of with a tenant

Tony Robinson:
Specifically. Ash, does it have anything to do with the class of property? Are your single families in A and B class neighborhoods and your multifamily’s in C class?

Ashley Kehr:
No, they’re all pretty much in the same market or very close. And mine aren’t 40 single family. They’re still small multifamily. So it’s a mix of both single family and small multifamily, but just using a bigger one, a larger multifamily as comparison. But also too, when you’re getting into that scenario of having a 40 unit, it makes sense to hire property management or to hire someone to run it because you have the, well, hopefully you have the cash flow from that property to support having a property manager to take care of those issues. But in my experience personally, I would rather take the 40 individual if I had to pick the tenant management of it is what I would rather do is the individual properties than the complex altogether.

Tony Robinson:
Okay. Well, that’s good to know. That’s why we got you on here as a resident, multifamily, large and small expert. Ash, you can give those insights.

Ashley Kehr:
Oh, and one more thing on that too, is that I feel like you have more financial opportunity with having the separate units than the one building. Because if you need cash, you can go and refinance, you can get a line of credit on your apartment complex, you can do all of that. But with the small multifamily, you could list one property for sale. You could put a line of credit on one of them, on two of them, you could pay off one of them. So with the large apartment complex, you’re going to pay off that property, that’s probably going to be a lot of money you need to pay off that. Where at the single family, you could have some that are completely paid off and then other ones with mortgages on it. So I kind of like that side of it too, is that with having the different units, you have flexibility and financial opportunity where you can kind of move things around if necessary.
That’s

Tony Robinson:
A great point. You have more levers to pull, which you don’t get with the multifamily. I think maybe on the inverse side of that though, one of the other benefits of multifamily is that there’s maybe less risk in the sense that on a single family home, if someone moves out, you’re at 0% or 100% vacancy or 0% occupancy, if I’m using my short termmental words. But on the other side with multifamily, if I have a fourplex and I’ve got three out of the four units rented, well, at least I still got some income even though someone’s out. So there’s a benefit in the other direction of having multiple people under the same roof.

Ashley Kehr:
And it’s more scalable for small multifamily or even large multifamily, just multifamily in general is you are purchasing, you’re doing one acquisition. So you’re making one offer, you’re doing due diligence on one building, you’re closing, you’re doing one mortgage, you’re done. But if you say that that was a five unit you just bought, that was one process. But if you’re going to buy five single family, you have to do that five times over. You have to go and find five different properties. You have to offer on them, you have to get them accepted, you have to do due diligence on those properties, you have to get through the closing. So acquisition I think is much easier to get more under one roof than it is to do them all separately too.

Tony Robinson:
In general, I feel like there’s pros and cons to each, right? Both can be successful, but each one has its own pros and cons. I think maybe the last thing I’d highlight, Ash, on the multifamily side is that in addition to your point of just being able to scale faster, you can typically also get more cash flow. If I have one single family residence that’s $300,000 versus same price, 300K, but I’ve now got five units or four units, in theory, the rent across the four would be more than the rent for that one property. So more cash flow, potentially better returns as well.

Ashley Kehr:
Okay. So we covered the benefits and some of the cons of each of these different asset classes, but when we come back, we’re going to highlight a few more cons you should be aware of for each strategy. We’ll be right back. Okay. Welcome back from our short break, and thank you so much for taking the time to check out our show sponsors. Let’s go over some of the cons, the additional cons that we haven’t discussed yet for single family properties. And Tony, I think one of these is house hacking, completely capable of doing house hacking by renting by the room with single family. But a lot of times that may not be something that you actually want to do is rent by the room with other people living in your property and you’re more comfortable having your own unit. So it does limit the amount of people who would use house hacking as a strategy if they only had the option of a single family because you do have to live with others where if you get your own unit, to me, that at least sounds a lot nicer idea of house hacking than single family.

Tony Robinson:
And then on the multifamily side is that as you get bigger, the financing requirements start to change as well. Obviously, if you go super, super big, say you’re syndicating an apartment complex that’s multiple seven figures and it gets really, really complex where you’ve got to have a guarantor on loan and someone who’s got the net worth to be able to sign for it and it gets a little bit more complex. A lot of times you’ll eat more money down. We talk about buying a single family home. To your point, Ash, house hacking a single family home, 3.5% down, FHA, there are some loan options that are 0% down, but as you get into some of the larger multifamily things, they want 20, 25%, sometimes 30% down in order for those deals to make sense. So I think even on the financing side, it can become a little bit more complex as you get into the multifamily space as well.

Ashley Kehr:
There’s also requirements with commercial loans, and not even just for large multifamily, but even for my five unit, my six unit is when you’re doing a commercial loan, a lot of times they will have requirements of you need to keep as long as you have the life of the loan. For example, you need to have sometimes so much money in reserves, and then sometimes you need to stick within a specific DSER kind of range in order to keep the loan in good faith or that it’s in compliance. So there are other things with commercial loans when you’re getting into small multifamily or large multifamily that you do need to consider to make sure that your property is performing well. So if you do have a single family and your property sits vacant for a while and you don’t have any income coming in, but you just have a conventional loan as the financing, no one’s going to be checking and caring that there’s no income as long as you’re going in and paying your rent.
But when you have one of these commercial loans, they’re going to ask you for financials every single year and they’re going to make sure that your property is performing and that it’s not all of a sudden going downhill. When I worked for another investor, every year we would submit the financials and if there was anything that was out of the ordinary, they would question and I would have to show like, “Oh, we replaced the roof. That’s why the capital improvements was so much higher this year or we did a whole re-landscaping,” different things like that. Or we just had a ton of repairs and I would have to show what those repairs were to the bank too. So that’s also something to be cautious of when considering going with a commercial loan for a small multifamily too.

Tony Robinson:
Wash, what do you think? Should we look at maybe some real examples of what this might look like in practice? So the team at BiggerPockets here gave us two deals that are actually on the market right now. One is a single family home in Memphis, Tennessee. We’ll call that Maple Tree Drive. The other is a duplex also in Memphis and it’s on Waynoca Avenue. So we got the Maple Tree single family home. We have the duplex on Waynoca.

Ashley Kehr:
Why can’t we just call them single family and then the multifamily?

Tony Robinson:
Because I just want to hear you stumble over the words. That’s the whole reason why. I saw that. I was like, I’ve got to get Ash to try and say that live on air. So we got the single family, we’ve got the duplex. So the single family here is 210,000 bucks. And let’s just assume that for both of these, we’re going to do 20% down, call it a 7% mortgage rate, 8% for vacancy and 1% of purchase price for maintenance and CapEx. So if we just use those as ballpark figures for both. On the single family home, 210,000 bucks, 20% down, 7% rate. Your principal and interest will be about $1,100. Property taxes, about 230, insurance 120, maintenance 175, vacancy 128. And based on what we’re seeing, rents in this area are about 1,600. So guys, if we take that 1,600 and we subtract out all of those expenses we just listed, we end up with a cash flow of negative $172 per month.
So here’s a single family home with brand new construction, beautifully done, but we will be losing negative 172. Now I just want to highlight too, because we’re also including maintenance and vacancy which hasn’t happened. We don’t know if that’s going to happen, but we still want to make sure that we account for those things as well in our initial underwriting. So it’s tough on a single family home, at least in this market for this specific deal. But let’s look at maybe how the duplex compares to that one.

Ashley Kehr:
So the duplex, we are going to purchase it at 269,900 with 20% down, also 7% mortgage rate. So for P&I, we’re looking at about 1,400 bucks a month. The property tax, 315 a month, insurance 160, maintenance about 225. Vacancy at 8% is around $200. And we think we can get for rent about 1250 per unit, so $2,500 in total per month. This would put us for our monthly cash flow at $164 per month. So sometimes this is easier to get a multifamily property cash flow because you have the higher combined rents, but you also have similar expenses. So for example, let’s look at the property taxes. The single family home, the property tax is $231 per month, and the property tax of the duplex is 315. So even though you’re getting double the rent, you are only paying $100 more in property taxes, basically actually less than that each month.
And then the insurance for the single family, 120, the insurance for the duplex, 160. So a lot of those expenses are not that much more if you have more units in the property, which can make a big difference.

Tony Robinson:
And even though the per unit rent on the duplex is cheaper than the overall rent for the single family home, because there’s two, we’re generally going to make more. Guys, in this example, the duplex gives you more cash, but which one of these properties actually get you to financial freedom faster? And let’s assume obviously that we’re only buying single family homes that produce cash flow, right? But don’t go anywhere because we’ll cover that and more right after the break. All right. So what is the best path to financial freedom and which property would Ash and I actually choose? I think this largely depends on what your goals are. Why exactly is it that you chose to invest in real estate? Do you want to quit your job as soon as humanly possible? Tony asked, if I could quit yesterday, I would’ve done it. Do you want to build maybe a bigger portfolio that gives you at least maybe some job optionality where maybe it’s not quitting and not working at all, but can I go maybe take a lesser paying job that I enjoy more because I have the real estate?
Or maybe you’re like, Tony, I love what I do. I’m a teacher. I love teaching. I’m a doctor. I love being a doctor. I’m going to do this if I can’t do it anymore. And real estate investing is just another way for me to diversify and build wealth for retirement. All those strategies or all those goals are fine. I think it’s just first clearly defining which one is the one that you’re actually working toward because different goals could lead to different solutions. If your goal is, hey, 30 years from now I want this, well then maybe you’re fine if the duplex or the single family home is barely breaking even because in 30 years it’ll be paid off and it’s in a very high appreciating market, so you’ll be set. But if you want to quit today, the barely breaking even is going to help a whole heck of a lot.

Ashley Kehr:
It also depends on your time and what you are capable of doing or maybe what you even want to do. So if you’re going to go after multifamily and you want to take down a 10 to 20 unit, do you have the time to manage a property like that? Sometimes there’s this little gray area where it consumes a lot of your time for the management, but it’s also there’s not enough room in the cash flow to actually hire someone to be the property manager on these units or it really cuts down into the cash flow of these properties and you don’t have the huge unit count to actually cover the price of hiring your own property manager in-house too. So that’s one thing you got to look at, or maybe you do really want to be a full-time property manager for your rentals. I feel like that’s basically what I am is I self-manage.
I use a lot of tools and resources, but is that something you actually want to do? Do you want to not pay a property manager and then you keep that money in house and that helps you leave your nine to five job because you’re keeping that money instead of giving it out to property manager? Then maybe going after multifamily is better because you’re going to get more units than you would buying a single family one at a time throughout the time period. The next thing that you want to look at is your market. You need to understand what will work and what won’t work in your market too. So like I said in the beginning, single families in the market that I invest in appreciate better over time than multifamily does, but that could be the complete opposite in your market. So you need to do your own research and verify the market that you’re looking in.
Look at all of the things we talk about, the pros and the cons. Look at rents. Do people pay more for a single family home for rent, even though it’s the same bedroom count, the same bath count, because they’re getting that privacy of their own home instead of living in a duplex or a triplex where they’re still sharing that area with others? Or maybe it’s opposite. Maybe people prefer to live in an apartment than living in a single family home. So these are all things that can vary market to market. So you do need to do your own research in the market that you’re looking at. Just take all of the points that we talked about and then use that to analyze your market.

Tony Robinson:
Guys, I think the bottom line is that both property types can work. And the beauty of real estate investing is that you can layer different strategies together. So if you want to go out and buy a single family home, maybe it doesn’t work as a traditional long-term rental, but could you rent by the room? Could you add an ADU on the back and turn it into a multifamily? Can you turn it into an assisted living facility? Can you turn it into a midterm rental or a short-term rental? There are so many different strategies that we can layer together. And Ash and I, we’ve both done a little bit of everything. I built most of my portfolio with single family homes in more expensive markets. Ash built her portfolio with the mix, single family, small multifamily and more affordable cities. Both of us have found success.
So I think the question guys is less about which strategy is best And it’s more so about which one can you execute the best on? And if you can answer that question, then everything’s going to work in your favor at that point.

Ashley Kehr:
Okay. Now Tony, if you were starting over in 2026 going into 2027, would you pick the single family? Would you pick multifamily?

Tony Robinson:
I would pick single family.

Ashley Kehr:
Yeah, I feel like your answer is so obvious.

Tony Robinson:
I would pick single family. Obviously my first instinct is that I do a short-term rental because that’s what I know so well. But let’s say that I’m starting over as a rookie and I didn’t have the experience that I have and I was just like Tony who was still working at Tesla, I would probably still do that same thing because not only would short-term rentals give me the cash flow, the increased cashflow above the long-term rentals, but it would also give me the tax benefit, which would then allow me to hopefully get a big tax refund and then just repeat that same process over again. And traditionally speaking, single family properties can produce more revenue than an equivalent small multi or duplex because folks want that space and those experiences. So that’s what I would do. Ash, what about you? If you’re starting over.

Ashley Kehr:
Yeah. I mean, I actually have a really hard decision on this, because I think my start went out great doing duplexes. That’s all I bought at first was just duplexes and I think it worked out really well. But if I go back to that and the cash flow was decent and it definitely would’ve been harder to cash flow at first. So I don’t think that I would’ve been as successful in the early years if I was doing single family homes because the cash flow was so much smaller on those than the small multifamily, the duplexes. But if I look back over the last 10 years and I compare the appreciation from a single family, if I would’ve bought it at that time and what it’s worth now compared to my first ever duplex and what that’s worth now, I would have a lot more wealth, I would say.
So I think the duplex was the right choice because at the time I was chasing cashflow and I wanted cash flow. I didn’t want to work anymore and that was the right strategy for that. And I think a good mix was to start with that and then add in the single family properties. And I still don’t have a lot of single family homes. I just have a small handful, but they definitely see way more appreciation than the small multifamily for sure. But also at the time too, when I first started, I thought I would never ever sell a property. So I didn’t think that I would ever do that. I just though maybe I would pay them off or I would maybe refinance them or something like that. But I learned along the way that your goals change, your buy changes, and I didn’t want my dumpy little duplexes that Tony’s jealous of that I bought for $20,000 anymore.
Well, thank you guys so much for listening to this episode. We want to know if you’re watching on YouTube, but what strategy are you going after or are you currently investing in? Is it single family or multifamily properties? Let us know in the comments. I’m Ashley. He’s Tony and we’ll see you guys on another episode of Real Estate Ricky.

 

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].

Equifax overhauls broker credit report, moves to soft inquiry




New fraud, income and insolvency indicators aim to help brokers spot problems before lenders do, as the credit bureau warns that assessing borrower risk looks very different from just a few years ago.

Kremlin Linked Fintech A7 Reportedly Moved Billions Via Global Banks Using Forged Invoices


A recent investigation has revealed how a Kremlin-linked payments company allegedly moved more than $6.9 billion through major international banks by exploiting gaps in compliance controls and using a large-scale document-forgery operation.

The reporting from the FT is said to be based on hundreds of thousands of internal files obtained from A7, a fintech group launched in late 2024 as a workaround after Russian lenders were cut off from the SWIFT messaging network following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

A7 was established with backing from Promsvyazbank, a state-owned bank closely tied to Russia’s defense sector, and Moldovan businessman Ilan Shor.

The company marketed itself as an alternative channel for Russian firms seeking to conduct cross-border trade.

According to the leaked records, A7 did not rely solely on novel payment technology.

Instead it used a network of front companies in jurisdictions including Kyrgyzstan, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong and Hungary.

These intermediaries opened accounts at banks still connected to SWIFT.

When compliance teams questioned transfers, A7 staff allegedly generated counterfeit invoices and supporting paperwork on an industrial scale.

Transaction descriptions and customs codes were routinely altered so that restricted goods appeared to be ordinary commercial items.The structure of SWIFT itself helped the scheme operate.

The system generally depends on the originating bank to verify its own customers rather than independently checking every beneficiary.

Once A7-linked entities cleared those initial controls, funds could move onward through correspondent banks.

The documents show substantial volumes reaching well-known institutions. Accounts at Standard Chartered in Hong Kong received about $1.1 billion from A7-connected entities between late 2024 and August 2025.

Seventeen entities holding accounts at First Abu Dhabi Bank sent more than $1.8 billion outbound.

Smaller but still significant sums reached clients of DBS in Hong Kong, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank.

A7-linked vehicles also used accounts at JPMorgan.

Some of the payments appear connected to purchases by Russian security services and military-related entities.

The files indicate that A7 maintained a roster of roughly 100 front companies whose purpose was to create a plausible paper trail and obscure the Russian origin of the funds.

Several banks named in the investigation said they take anti-money-laundering and sanctions obligations seriously.

First Abu Dhabi Bank stated it had already identified and closed the relevant accounts.

Other institutions declined to discuss individual cases but emphasized existing controls.

A7 and its principals have been designated by the United States, United Kingdom and European Union.

Despite those measures, the leaked material suggests the network continued to route large sums through the conventional banking system for many months by substituting forged documentation for genuine commercial activity.

The episode highlights persistent weaknesses in how global banks monitor correspondent relationships and trade-based transfers.

It also illustrates the difficulty of fully isolating a large economy from the international financial system when determined actors combine shell companies, document fabrication and access to SWIFT-connected institutions.



Why 80% of Startups Waste Their First Marketing Retainer


Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Key Takeaways

  • The most expensive mistake happens before the agency does a single hour of work: The agency and client rarely discuss what the business actually needs to look different in six months for the engagement to have been worth it.
  • Your first marketing retainer is a significant bet. The agencies that will serve you best are the ones willing to be held accountable to a number that actually matters to your business.

A founder I work with hired a marketing agency eight months into his startup. Solid agency, good reputation, reasonable contract. Six months later, he had a beautiful brand deck, a content calendar running like clockwork and a social presence that had grown by a few thousand followers. He also had no new customers he could trace back to any of it.

When I asked what success had looked like in the original scope of work, he went quiet. “I guess we never actually defined it,” he said.

That conversation comes up more often than I’d like. Not because agencies are dishonest or founders are naive, but because the agency-client relationship for an early-stage startup is structurally set up to produce the wrong outcomes if you don’t actively design it otherwise. Agencies are very good at delivering what they can measure, and what’s easy to measure and what actually moves your business forward are often two different things.

What founders get wrong before the contract is signed

The most expensive mistake happens before the agency does a single hour of work. Most founders go into a retainer conversation thinking about outputs: how many posts per week, how many emails per month, what the deliverables look like. Agencies are happy to have that conversation because deliverables are easy to define and easy to demonstrate at the end of the month.

What almost never gets discussed is what the business actually needs to look different in six months for this engagement to have been worth it. Revenue from a specific channel, a pipeline that didn’t exist before, customer acquisition cost coming down measurably. These are harder to commit to, so most agencies won’t volunteer them as success criteria unless you make them.

Before you sign anything, you should be able to answer two questions clearly. First, what does this agency believe is true about your market or your customer that your current strategy isn’t acting on? If they can’t answer that with specificity, you’re buying execution without a point of view, which is rarely what an early-stage startup needs.

Second, how will we both know in 90 days whether this is working? If the answer involves impressions, follower counts or share of voice, that’s a signal worth paying attention to.

Why vanity metrics survive so long in agency relationships

Founders often sense something is off well before they act on it. The reports look active, the team seems engaged, there’s always something to show on a call. The problem is that activity and progress are easy to conflate when you don’t have clear baseline data and a specific number you’re trying to move.

Agencies don’t push vanity metrics because they’re trying to obscure poor performance. Most of the time they push them because those are the metrics they can reliably influence within a retainer. Follower growth, engagement rate and content volume are things an agency can control. Whether any of that converts to pipeline depends on your product, your sales motion and your pricing, all of which extend well beyond their scope. So they report what they can defend, and founders accept it because the alternative is an uncomfortable conversation.

The way to break this cycle is to agree on a shared “signal metric” before work begins. Something that sits between a vanity metric and a revenue outcome, specific enough to be meaningful but close enough to the agency’s work to be fair. For a B2B startup, it might be demo requests from organic channels. For a consumer brand, it might be repeat purchase rate among customers acquired through content. Whatever it is, get it in writing before month one.

The red flags founders ignore because they’re excited

Most founders can spot a bad agency in retrospect. The harder skill is spotting the signs during the pitch, when everything feels promising and the deck looks polished.

An agency that can’t point to a client whose business measurably grew because of their work is a red flag, not a gap they’ll fill with your company. Ask for two or three examples where a client saw a specific business outcome they can trace back to the agency’s work, something with a number attached and a clear line of causation, not just “we grew their social presence.”

Watch for agencies that build strategy entirely from your brief without pressure-testing your assumptions. Good agencies push back. They ask whether your positioning actually resonates with the buyer you think you’re targeting, whether your conversion path makes sense given your price point and whether the channel you want to invest in is where your customer actually makes decisions. If the strategy process feels like they’re mostly agreeing with you and adding production value, be skeptical.

And pay attention to who is in the room during the pitch versus who will actually be doing the work. The senior team that closes the deal and the junior team that runs the account are often very different groups of people.

What a productive retainer actually looks like

The founders I’ve seen get real value from agency relationships share a few habits. They treat the first 30 days as a diagnostic, not an execution sprint. They push the agency to pressure-test assumptions about the audience, the message and the channel before any significant production begins. This slows things down initially and sometimes creates friction, but it almost always produces better outcomes than moving fast on a strategy nobody has genuinely stress-tested.

They also maintain a clear internal owner of the agency relationship with enough context to evaluate the work critically, not just approve deliverables. When the person managing the agency doesn’t understand the commercial goals deeply enough to push back on a content calendar, the relationship drifts toward activity for its own sake very quickly.

Your first marketing retainer is a significant bet. The agencies that will serve you best are the ones willing to be held accountable to a number that actually matters to your business. If they’re reluctant to have that conversation, that tells you something important before you’ve spent a dollar.

Key Takeaways

  • The most expensive mistake happens before the agency does a single hour of work: The agency and client rarely discuss what the business actually needs to look different in six months for the engagement to have been worth it.
  • Your first marketing retainer is a significant bet. The agencies that will serve you best are the ones willing to be held accountable to a number that actually matters to your business.

A founder I work with hired a marketing agency eight months into his startup. Solid agency, good reputation, reasonable contract. Six months later, he had a beautiful brand deck, a content calendar running like clockwork and a social presence that had grown by a few thousand followers. He also had no new customers he could trace back to any of it.

When I asked what success had looked like in the original scope of work, he went quiet. “I guess we never actually defined it,” he said.

That conversation comes up more often than I’d like. Not because agencies are dishonest or founders are naive, but because the agency-client relationship for an early-stage startup is structurally set up to produce the wrong outcomes if you don’t actively design it otherwise. Agencies are very good at delivering what they can measure, and what’s easy to measure and what actually moves your business forward are often two different things.

Harvard’s Judgment Professor: Numbers Don’t Make Decisions; People Do


In this episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, Motley Fool contributor Rachel Warren sits down with Reza Satchu, Harvard Business School senior lecturer and six-time company founder, for Part 1 of a conversation. He:

  • Unpacks why judgment — not intellect or data — is the scarcest asset in the age of AI.
  • Whether it can actually be taught.
  • The real story behind walking away from a billion-dollar buyout offer on his student housing company, only to sell it a year later for $1.7 billion.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool’s free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you’re ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

A full transcript is below.

This podcast was recorded on Sept. 13, 2026.

Reza Satchu: Judgment is not something that you can observe or that you can learn through osmosis. It has to be done by actually exercising it and making decisions, stepping into risk, and thinking about what the consequences are of those.

Rachel Warren: That was Reza Satchu, serial entrepreneur, investor, and senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, on why judgment, not numbers, is the thing that most investors overlook. I’m Motley Fool analyst Rachel Warren. Reza has built six companies across multiple market cycles, achieving billions in exits, and teaches two of Harvard Business School’s most popular courses, the founder mindset and founder launch. I sat down with Reza to talk through why judgment is becoming the scarcest asset in the age of AI, whether it can be taught, and how he personally walked away from a billion-dollar buyout offer and made it pay off. We hope you enjoy Part 1.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Conversations. I’m Rachel Warren. When we evaluate businesses to buy and hold for the long term, we often spend hours poring over income statements, balance sheets, cash flow trends, and that’s important, but numbers don’t make decisions. People do. Our guest today argues that investors often spend more time studying a company’s numbers than evaluating the judgment of the people deciding what happens to those numbers next. Reza Satchu is a serial entrepreneur, investor, and senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, where he teaches two of the university’s most popular courses, The Founder Mindset and The Founder Launch. Over Reza’s career, he has built six companies across multiple market cycles, achieving billions in exits. He is the founder and managing partner of an investment management corporation and the host of Harvard’s The Founder Mindset podcast. Reza, welcome to the show.

Reza Satchu: Thank you, Rachel. Thanks for having me.

Rachel Warren: I want to lean a bit into this core idea that investors often spend so much time studying a company’s numbers, but maybe not so much evaluating the judgment of the people deciding what happens next. I’d love to hear your thoughts on why do you think that the investing community or the markets in general tend to be so hyper-focused on the math, but often ignore that human judgment as driving it.

Reza Satchu: I think it’s a great question, Rachel, and I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. In fact, if you think about the courses I teach, some would say, Well, Rachel, why are you so focused on the mindset and not on the venture? Because, ultimately, what I’m trying to help is students launch their ventures. What I would tell you is, having done this, this is my 24th year teaching, there is far more traction and learning and improvement and probability of success that I can have by evaluating and improving one’s mindset. As opposed to spending a whole bunch of time evaluating their business. What that means is, what is that characteristic in the mindset that we’re looking for, and it all comes down to judgment.

I’d say it’s even more important in the age of AI, where so much can be replicated other than judgment. There’s no question that judgment is something that investors, employees, customers are desperately trying to evaluate. The question is, how do you evaluate it? How do you build it? What I would say is that judgment is not something that you can observe or that you can learn through osmosis. It has to be done by actually exercising it and making decisions, stepping into risk, and thinking about what the consequences are of those. I think, first of all, everyone agrees I think people would agree that judgment’s very important. I think the reason the market shies away from it is because it’s so hard to evaluate it. It’s very hard. It’s this nefarious thing that you can’t actually put math around. But if I had to say, what is the single most important thing that I’m looking for when I make an investment in a business or whether to spend time with a founder or not, it is my evaluation of their judgment. Invariably, what that is is evaluating previous decisions that they’ve made and understanding how they calibrated risk and trusted their judgment in that decision.

Rachel Warren: That leads me into this idea. How do you define the anatomy of good judgment? What are the differentiating factors you look for?

Reza Satchu: The first thing is, let’s just say, you can live a life where you never make a decision. You let things happen to you, and the status quo stays the same. Most people, frankly, see an idea and just assume that there’s no way that they could possibly think that could be a real idea because they don’t have the resources, and I’d say, every business, if a founder felt that way, that business wouldn’t exist today. Meaning I often say to people that you want to be opportunity-driven and not resource-constrained.

But to your question around, what does it look like in terms of how do you know how do you actually build or exercise judgment, at the end of the day, it’s around, are you putting yourself in situations where you’re making real decisions. Are you actually feeling the risk calibration? I also would say to you that there’s, there’s so much of human psychology here where human beings massively overestimate their downsides, typically, in terms of what they’re capable of when they actually commit to things and underestimate the upside notes. What ends up happening is I have a phrase which says, if in doubt act. Now, some people would say that’s very reckless. I’d say it’s not reckless at all. I just I may decide to stay with the status quo, but I’d much rather say I’m making an active decision, trusting my judge to go with the status quo, as opposed to what most people do, which is a deer and headlight approach, where you just freeze or get paralyzed and just stay the course. I think this active learning by doing where you’ve got someone who’s actually, frankly, living a life where they’re constantly stepping into rest, seeking risk, and calibrating it, and making decisions is what I look for.

ADVERTISEMENT: You just found out that your sales team is at risk of missing quota. Don’t panic. Just ask Rippling AI. Since it’s built on your real time people and business data, Rippling AI can pull metrics from rippling and Salesforce into a meeting ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount plan, and monthly revenue to quota by region. In seconds, you’ll see exactly what’s behind your quota risk and fix it before it’s missed. Question answered, action taken, crisis averted. When you have critical business questions that need answers, don’t just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report. Describe what you need and have Rippling AI build it instantly from your live people and business data, whether it’s a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals. Ready to rule your business, head to rippling.ai/fool to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization. That’s R-I-P-P-L-I-N-G.A-I F-O-O-L. Sign up for exclusive access today rippling.ai/fool.

ADVERTISEMENT: Legendary flavors from legendary Xbox games are now at McDonald’s. Crispy Golden Garlic and black pepper McNabb. Cheesy Potato Bites from Fallout ‘76 Candy Crush McFlurry. The main mission can wait. Take a side mission to McDonald’s. Available until 29th of September from 11:00 A.M. While stocks last subject to availability. Participation varies.

Rachel Warren: That’s interesting, as well. I’m curious, as you meet with founders and in your experience, you think leadership judgment is something that can be taught? Do you think it’s an innate trait?

Reza Satchu: Yeah, this is a great question. Rachel, what I’d say is, I would have wasted 24 years of my life if I thought you were born with it. It would have just this whole 24-year teaching adventure of mine would be an exercise in futility. What I would say is I have now taught thousands of students I can look at my own life, and I believe much of this is learnable. Meaning I don’t believe that people are born with this certain trait that allows them to lead or to found. Meaning I’ve seen too many stories of people have come from backgrounds and situations where you just think, wow, they are not going to be able to rise up and lead. Frankly, sometimes it’s precisely because of that adversity that they’ve been able to lead, but my point is I do think that it’s teachable. I do think people can choose to learn it.

I will give you an example. You could imagine in today’s day and age, you could almost think about what is learning today? It used to be memorization. It used to be listening to a professor lecture. Would actually say all of those skills are replicated far better by AI. Learning today is making consequential decisions that you are accountable for. Because it’s in those moments where you’re calibrating risk and trusting your judgment. I believe judgment is much more like a bicep than it is this thing you get at birth, meaning I believe the more you exercise it, the bigger it gets. What it means is you must seek risk. You must seek discomfort. You must push yourself into situations of uncertainty where you are being forced to test and trust your judgment.

Rachel Warren: One thing that’s interesting that you mentioned briefly earlier this idea that executive judgment becomes drastically more important in the age of AI. There’s so much data is commoditized. I’d like it if you could lean a bit more into your thoughts on that.

Reza Satchu: I think, actually, how you’ve articulated is dead on, which is that data is becoming more and more commoditized. There is no differentiation when it comes to math and numbers and raw intellectual horsepower. The differentiation is in taking that data and figuring out what are you going to do with it. What are the judgments you’re going to make around that? I often say that when I look at the lens from a founder, which is no different from a CEO of a public company. If I had to say, what are the differences in terms of when I evaluate founders versus a CEO of a public company in this day and age, it’s around if I had a crystal ball, if there was one trait I could measure in order to give someone a dollar it would be judgment. It would literally be judgment.

What I’m constantly asking founders is tell me how you’re exercising your judgment. Tell me about time, what you learned from flawed judgment. Tell me how you benefited from actually stepping into the arena and making these decisions. I think the first thing about judgment is you have to actually want to exercise it. The thing about judgment is there’s a downside to judgment. There’s a downside in that you may get it wrong. That’s why it’s a judgment. It’s not costless. But I’d also say that it is incredibly arrogant, to think that you could have any outperformance or impact without calibrating and seeking and operating with risk. The world is too efficient to do that. It’s become a world where it’s judgment that becomes the marginal differentiation.

The fascinating part here, Rachel, is how do you evaluate it? Like, how do you know when someone? Because there’s no Excel spreadsheet, that’s going to give you the answer to this. It’s your own judgment on someone else’s judgment. But here’s what I will say, and you see it with people like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Michelle Zatlyn at Cloudflare, which is, I also believe, judgment isn’t linear. I think it’s exponential, meaning, I think the reason you can see Mark Zuckerberg’s never managed anyone and suddenly builds Facebook and at the age of 30 is managing 10,000 people or whoever it may be, it’s because of the cumulative decisions that he or she is making in that arena. That’s leading to better and better judgment, precisely because you’re effectively going to the gym more often. You’re effectively exercising that judgment more often. But I do think the impact of AI is just massive efficiency. Massive commoditization, to use your word, which therefore will only leave in terms of outperformance, will lie in people’s interpretation and judgment of data that otherwise looks available to everyone.

ADVERTISEMENT: Legendary flavors from legendary Xbox games are now at McDonald’s. Crispy Golden garlic and black pepper McNugget. Cheesy Potato Bites from Fallout ‘76 and Candy Crush McFlurry. The main mission can wait. Take a side mission to McDonald’s. Available until 29 September from 11:00 A.M. While stocks last subject to availability. Participation varies.

ADVERTISEMENT: The season’s officially changing, and Abercrombie’s autumn drop has everything you’ll need. Their heritage heavyweight collection is a staple, especially in their archive quality fabrics. Pair it with the baggy trouser and your fit is set, and you can’t forget their iconic denim. It’s made for everyday plans. Find your autumn capsule at Abercrombie, shop in the app online and in stores.

Rachel Warren: Going back to this idea of operating on calibrated risk rather than fear of regret, I was reading about the sale of Alignvest student housing, the 1.7 billion dollar deal, and I was reading the story behind this that initially there was a buyout offer that exceeded 1 billion. Almost everyone around you told you to take it, you walked away, and then closed the sale for 1.7 billion dollars. How do you tell the difference between holding out for true upside, again, this idea of calibrated risk versus potentially succumbing to tons in judgment.

Reza Satchu: It’s interesting. I actually taught this I teach this case to my class at Harvard Business School, and literally 100% of my students say you should sell at 1.1 billion dollars. Meaning meaning they were like, “You make a lot of money”. We had both Blackstone and TPG as bidders in that business at the time. But here’s what I’d say is from my perspective I’m the founder of the business, the controlling shareholder of that business. I have a lot of information. This phrase, which is, like, tension is your friend. Meaning it’s like love. You’ve got to walk away, and it’ll only close if someone chases. In this case, I think I’m a big fan of orchestrating tension in any deal. I think here, I felt like there was a lot left on the table, and my partner and I felt like that we could build more. There was risk. You could imagine that the market could turn or the buyers could go away.

But it was calibrated, meaning we were like, the upside here feels like the downside was we couldn’t imagine the business trading it south of at anything worse than a five cap, which meant that our downside was that it was a billion business. Maybe we would lose 100 million dollars of equity value. But the upside was if we could actually execute on the things we could do, there could be several hundred million dollars. It felt like a very good trade. Ultimately, I think the other interesting thing I would say to you, Rachel, four of the five businesses I founded, I did not use a banker, OK, to invest in so this a billion and a half dollar deal with no investment banker.

I’m a big believer in what Paul Graham calls founder mode. I’m a big believer in founder mode, meaning, like, why would I outsource one of the most important decisions of my founder journey to a 30-year-old associate at Goldman Sachs who is completely conflicted and who just wants to get a deal done to get paid, and, frankly, will do much more business with the strategic that’s going to acquire me than with me. I think the more interested so, I think, from our perspective, it made sense, and I think we sold it at the right time. But I’d also say we were getting information directly from the sellers or from the buyers, such that I could process it and make a decision. As opposed to getting it filtered through intermediaries, that may have a very conflicted situation. Meaning, I’m entirely sure that if I had a banker, at that point in time, I would have sold the business because they would have convinced me to sell it.

Rachel Warren: It’s an interesting story, and I wanted to ask you about that. I think a lot of times, as investors investing in public companies or otherwise, we often only see leadership through earnings calls. I want to talk more about maybe a framework for distinguishing genuine judgment, which we’ve talked about a bit, of course, today, from polished storytelling. You have a personal framework for that?

Reza Satchu: I do, yes. It’s a great question, and I think a lot about this because you can imagine that, especially in the public scenario, you can polish it up in a way that it’s very hard to discern. The times when judgment matters most is in times of crisis. Which inevitably happens to every founder and every CEO. If I have one shot to evaluate someone’s judgment, what I want to do is understand how they behaved in moments of crisis. When it felt incredibly uncertain, when the world wasn’t the way it was supposed to be, when they lost that major customer or their CTO went to another competitor or there was a scandal that happened, something that was unexpected, that wasn’t scripted, that they can’t polish. In that moment of crisis, how did they behave. That’s where I’m going very deep with someone. Same thing with the founder, where that’s the moment.

The inevitable because you know leadership only shows up in moments of crisis. When there’s no crisis, leadership isn’t warranted. The point is you want to know how people behave in moments of crisis. The thing about leadership is you and I both know that leadership is full of crises. We’re full of crises. What I’d be evaluating is, how did they behave in those crises? What I’d say I’d say the thing about a crisis is it’s not just downside. There’s also tremendous opportunities that crises have. I’d say you’re looking not just for how they were defensive in that moment and how they protected the franchise, but also what did they do in the culture or the organization to reposition it and take advantage of whatever that crisis was such that their probability of success is better and they’ve emerged stronger. I think how people behave in times of crisis, how leaders behave in times of crisis is critically important to evaluating judgment.

Rachel Warren: That was part one of the discussion, tune in next week for Part 2. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool Editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. For the Motley Fool Conversations team, I’m Rachel Warren. Thanks for listening. We’ll see you next time.