Advertising Disclosure: When you buy something by clicking links within this article, we may earn a small commission, but it never affects the products or services we recommend. For the past six months, something unusual has been happening with wages that America has not seen since the darkest days of the Great Recession. CNBC reports that workers who stay put in their jobs are now seeing…
August 27, 2025
When Target announced in August 2025 that COO Michael Fiddelke would assume the company’s top spot in early 2026, attention quickly turned to his remarkable journey with the retail giant. Over two decades at Target, Fiddelke climbed from finance intern to the C-suite.
Lewis Holden
Over 95% of banks’ emissions are ‘financed emissions’. These are indirect emissions from households and businesses who banks lend to or invest in (banks’ asset exposures). Banks disclose these in line with regulations designed to help markets understand their exposure to climate-related risks and their impact on the climate. But emissions disclosures vary drastically between different banks with similar business models. Data quality and availability is cited as the key reason for this. In this post, I demonstrate that variations in financed emissions estimates are explained by the extent of banking activities and asset exposures rather than data quality and availability. For example, whether estimates capture a subset of loan exposures or wider banking activities such as bond underwriting.
Comparing financed emissions between banks can be challenging because financed emissions scale with asset exposures. In Table A, I summarise financed emissions from a subsample of globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs) disclosures. For comparability, G-SIBs in Table A are of similar size.
Table A: G-SIB financed emissions
| G-SIB | Financed emissions (MtCO2e) |
| A | 4 |
| B | 19 |
| C | 46 |
| D | 115 |
Sources: G-SIBs’ climate-related disclosures and annual reports for financial years ending 2024.
How can these G-SIBs, which all operate globally with similar business models and asset exposures, report financed emissions an order of magnitude different from one another? Data quality is usually cited as the key impediment to accuracy and comparability. For instance, emissions disclosures mention ‘data quality’ or ‘data gap’ an average of 10 times. But is data really the core challenge?
The data argument goes like this. Households and businesses which banks lend to and invest in must disclose emissions before banks can aggregate these to calculate financed emissions. But the majority of banks’ asset exposures are households, consumers and unlisted corporates that do not disclose their emissions. Because disclosure requirements only apply to large, listed corporates. Large, listed corporates predominantly access finance via capital markets rather than loans. Therefore, banks need to estimate the emissions of the households and businesses who make up their asset exposures in order to calculate financed emissions.
Is data quality and availability the source of variation?
I compare three different financed emissions estimates for a sample of UK banks:
The data providers I use are MSCI and LSEG. The estimate relating to each provider has been anonymised. Broadly, my estimates capture banks’ corporate and mortgage loan exposures, as recommended by the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF). PCAF is the industry standard guidance for measuring financed emissions. Other exposures, such as consumer finance, and other banking activities, such as bond underwriting, are excluded.
In the absence of granular loan level data, my estimation model assumes banks’ borrowers can be proxied by an average. For example, loans to the UK transport sector are proxied by the mean carbon intensity for UK transport firms which disclose emissions data. This model has been developed by Bank staff and was applied in The Bank of England’s climate-related financial disclosure 2025.
Chart 1: Financed emissions disclosed by UK banks and estimated from my model
Sources: Banks’ climate-related disclosures and annual reports, MSCI and LSEG.
Despite the range of emissions data sources, proxies and aggregation methods, estimates fall within a range of around 10%. This implies the choice of emissions proxy data, and how estimation models aggregate this data, has a limited impact on aggregated financed emissions estimates.
Differences in financed emissions at the individual counterparty level may be more divergent. For example, the European Central Bank demonstrated that banks estimate a wide range of emissions for the same counterparty. My analysis does not dispute this. It simply demonstrates that when aggregated, financed emission estimates naturally converge towards the mean.
If data quality and availability don’t drive variations, what does?
The key driver of variance in financed emissions estimates is simply extent of business activities and asset exposures which banks estimate emissions for. I describe this as the ‘boundary’ of the estimate.
In Chart 1, I deliberately selected a subset of banks’ emissions reported on the basis of the same boundary as my model. This controlled for the boundary effect and isolated the effect of data quality and availability.
However, banks do not consistently disclose financed emissions on the basis of the same boundary. I identify three broad categories of boundary against which emissions can be estimated:
In Chart 2, instead of comparing estimates on the basis of the same ‘PCAF’ boundary, I deliberately compare financed emissions estimates across boundaries for the same sample of UK banks as in Chart 1. As I have already determined that data quality and availability has limited impact in Chart 1, this comparison isolates the extent to which the boundary impacts estimates.
Chart 2: Impact of boundary on UK banks’ financed emissions estimates
Sources: Banks’ climate-related disclosures and annual reports, MSCI and LSEG.
Expanding the boundary from ‘Minimal’ to ‘PCAF’ (A) increases the financed emissions estimate by almost 50%. This is because the ‘PCA’ boundary captures the majority of loan book emissions, while ‘Minimal’ boundary only captures emissions associated with a subset of high climate risk loans. This increase is material because while ‘high climate risk’ loans are banks’ most carbon intensive, they represent a relatively small proportion of total loans. This is particularly the case for UK banks whose largest exposures are residential mortgages.
Expanding the boundary from ‘PCAF’ to ‘All activities’ (B) increases the financed emissions estimate by almost another 50%. This is because the ‘All activities’ boundary captures emissions associated with the broadest range of banking activities, including assets under management. This effect is driven by the largest banks who undertake asset management and capital markets activities. The effect is more limited for banks which do not undertake these activities.
Interpreting emissions metrics across boundaries
Despite the variation in estimates of financed emissions across boundaries, there is no boundary which is superior. Instead, which boundary to rely on should depend on the use case.
In Table B, I propose a simple framework for how emissions metrics with different boundaries can proxy for two use cases – measuring climate-related financial risks and climate impact. ‘Financial risks’ means, for example, higher expected credit losses on loans. ‘Climate impact’ means banks’ contribution to climate change, such as the financing of carbon intensive activities.
Table B: Insights framework for financed emissions estimates
| Financial risk proxy | Climate impact proxy | |
| Minimal boundary | Limited insights | Limited insights |
| PCAF boundary | Most complete proxy | Direct impacts only |
| All activities boundary | Poorly correlated | Most complete proxy |
‘Minimal’ boundary estimates provide limited insights into banks’ financial risk exposure and impact. This is because they only capture a subset of banks’ activities.
‘PCAF’ boundary estimates are the most complete proxy for assessing banks’ exposure to climate financial risks. Loan exposures are the primary transmission channel through which financial risks will arise. This has been demonstrated in supervisory stress tests such as the 2021 Climate Biennial Exploratory Scenario. While other banking activities such as underwriting and asset management could expose banks to reputational and legal risks, the transmission of these risks into financial impacts is indirect.
‘All activities’ boundary estimates are the most complete proxy for climate impact. Banks’ impacts on climate change are not limited to direct loans and investments. The ‘PCAF’ boundary does not capture indirect impacts. For example, in managing investments in fossil fuel intensive companies, banks facilitate activity which will contribute to carbon emissions and subsequently climate impacts.
Conclusion
Differences in financed emissions estimates are caused by differences in the estimate boundary, not data quality. Transparency regarding estimate boundaries is therefore essential for interpretation of financed emissions metrics. No estimate boundary is best, with each offering insights into different use cases. The ‘PCAF’ boundary best proxies for banks’ exposure to financial risk, while the ‘All activities’ boundary best proxies for banks’ climate impact. The PCAF boundary should therefore be used by central banks in understanding climate financial risks, as well as in their own financial operations. Nonetheless, all emissions-based metrics are ultimately proxies. For financial risk purposes, they should be supplemented with more sophisticated tools such as scenario analysis.
Lewis Holden works in the Bank’s Financial Risk Management 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.
Share the post “Same firms, different footprints: making sense of financed emissions”
Update 8/27/25: Deal is back, valid through 9/19/2025.
Update 7/4/25: More people targeted, some for 40% off.
Update 6/18/25: Available again. This time $10 off $75+ or 30% off (max $30). Valid through 7/25/25.
Direct link to offer | Here’s another link (affiliate link here and below)
Amazon is offering a discount when you use at least 1 Discover Cashback Bonus point at checkout:
See a full list of cards you can link to Amazon at this link. You’ll also see there all cards you’ve already linked.
It seems like lately you’re not eligible for this deal if you’ve done the same points deal within the last 12 months. Still worth checking to see if you are targeted or not and obviously a great deal if you are. This deal works on third party gift cards, but not Amazon or Visa gift cards. Samples gift cards available on Amazon:
Learn basic concept of business administration in your business management. Watch full course of business management here – Like, share and subscribe young entrepreneurs forum channel to get future videos.
Thanks for watching business administration for beginners in 2 minutes.
source
When President Trump returned to the White House his intention was clear: Make America Great Again. But the United States’s economic partners, and some of its rivals, are also benefitting from having the unorthodox showman back in the Oval Office.
Investors are watching the U.S. stock market with both enthusiasm and trepidation: The S&P 500 is up 15% over the past year, Treasuries have remained relatively steady, and the Fed’s monetary policy is expected to begin a downwards trajectory.
But overlaying the strong fundamentals are questions: Is the soaring growth of the Magnificent 7 stocks overvalued on the unfulfilled promises of AI? Will Trump’s unusual foreign policy materially damage the domestic economy? And where might the true winners of the artificial intelligence race emerge from?
Increasingly, investors are answering those questions by diversifting into a key region says Willem Sels, the global chief investment officer for HSBC’s global private bank. That region is China.
America continues to prove to its economic resilience and earnings deliverables, Sels told Fortune in an exclusive interview, but geopolitical uncertainty is pushing investors towards balancing risk with other regions.
Traditionally, the question of political influence over portfolios has centered on emerging markets, said Sels, but over the past few years that has moved into developed markets as well. As such, diversification has become more of a focus—particularly for business owners looking to spread risk between the economy they operate in and the assets used to protect their wealth.
“When a client comes in the door … the first discussion is please build a global portfolio. Maybe try to have as little as possible in your home country if you already have your business here, because that’s diversification,” Sels said. “Clearly the debate over the last few months was about, will there be diversification away from the U.S.? And there are a number of elements to that.”
Part of the question is how dominant U.S. Big Tech has become in equity markets, with the Magnificent 7 stocks (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla) providing most of the growth. As such, if these stocks hiccup it can have major ramifications for portfolios.
“Clearly you potentially need to do something around that … to diversify,” Sels said, “We highlight things like make sure that you don’t only have the growth stocks but have some value stocks, do some sector diversification, do some geographical diversification and so on.
“The other thing that triggered that diversification discussion obviously was the rapid policy changes in the U.S., and the growth of the debt pile, which led people to ask the question, is there a de-dollarization story and what does that mean in terms of my portfolio and other people’s portfolio? What we’ve seen in the data is that there have been two months or so where there were some outflows out of bonds and equity markets, but that has not lasted—to a large extent because policy has become a little bit clearer.”
“People are adding a little bit to other regions, adding a little bit to other sectors to be less concentrated in the U.S. market, but they are not fleeing away from it,” Sels continued. “There was enthusiasm for European stocks, but it was very short-lived. The Asian investors over the last 15 [to] 20 years that I’ve been going there find it very hard to get excited about Europe.”
Part of the problem is that these investors don’t see as many new or emerging companies which could materially change the European economy, and there’s also the issue of brand recognition beyond companies like LVMH and BMW, Sels said.
“This is the first time that we’re again seeing flows from Europe into China,” Sels added. “That is to a large extent because of the AI trade that people want to play, and then secondly this concept of anti-involution … with the supply side reforms which would address the issue of overcapacity, therefore the deflation issue and therefore the earnings growth, because what you have in China is a lot of very competitive companies … therefore they have no pressing power and therefore earnings growth has been reasonably weak.”
China has signaled a shift in priorities to address involution, with the country’s Central Finance and Economic Affairs Commission telling President Xi Jinping in a meeting last month that Beijing must “focus on key and difficult issues, regulate enterprises’ disorderly and low-price competition” and “guide enterprises to improve product quality and promote the orderly exit of outdated production capacity.”
Beijing is no stranger to the issue. In 2015 the government launched similar action to address overcapacity, particularly in key regions like steel and coal, in order to boost corporate profitability.
Flash forward to 2025 and “they’re now addressing that,” Sels said, “Therefore we think that earnings expectations will go up … one of the main obstacles for our clients had been the belief that [Chinese companies are] over-competing and therefore your earnings are not there, the economic growth is potentially there, but your earnings are not there.”
“That’s now changing, so we’re seeing flows back and obviously also encouraged by ‘How can I diversify my big U.S. trunk of assets?’”
With discussions about diversification out of U.S. remaining active, China seems to have emerged as the region to balance that risk, Sels said. And Beijing’s typically lower share prices also offer the category of the moment, AI, at a bargain.
In a note published last week, HSBC noted that within the AI ecosystem, infrastructure stocks are outperforming enablers and adopters—at 22.2% versus 11.3% and 13.5% since July. Indeed, this week Chinese chipmaker Cambricon Technologies briefly became the country’s most expensive stock, surging 10% on Wednesday to 1,465 yuan ($204.62). At the time of writing, the share price has dropped back but is up 112% for the year to date.
And while Cambricon exemplifies the more expensive end of the scale, Sels highlights that other equivalents to U.S. stocks can be found at a “30 to 40% discount.”
“We’re basically saying, listen, don’t just look at the chips makers but also look at the guys that build out the infrastructure around it. The guys that build out the energy, the electricity supply around it, the robotics and automation where it is not just a matter of we move the data a little bit—this is real, big innovation. And so by diversifying throughout the AI ecosystem, I think you address a little bit the question about valuations.”
China’s stock market is soaring: The SSE Composite Index is up 33.4% over the past year while the S&P 500 is up 14.9%. While the growth in China is marked, HSBC’s research points out U.S. AI-related capex (driven by the “Big 4” of Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta along with
Stargate and other private companies) are outspending China’s “Big 4” (Alibaba, ByteDance, Tencent, and Baidu, as well as telecom services companies) by eight to 10 times.
Moreover, HSBC’s research adds: “U.S. firms achieve higher returns on AI capex, with cloud platforms generating significantly more revenue than their Chinese counterparts – close to USD $400bn in the U.S. vs. USD $60bn in China in 2024, according to Statista.”
So while clients may be balancing against over-reliance on American companies, Sels said, the upside fundamentals of the U.S. remain strong—enough so to take a recession off the table. Indeed, while blips in tech stocks recently led to questions over an AI bubble, the HSBC boss remained bullish: “We certainly think that that AI liftoff is structural in nature.”
They say the riches are in the niches—and nowhere is that more true than in real estate investing.
As someone who reviews vastly different real estate investments every day as an organizer of a hands-off investment club, I wish I could say I’ve seen it all. But in this industry, there are thousands of deep niches, and no one knows them all.
Here are a few favorite real estate investing niches I’ve seen this year, including many I’ve invested in myself.
In my co-investing club, we’ve actually vetted and invested in several of these this year. They’re all performing great.
They work like this: A real estate syndicator partners with a nonprofit housing agency and the local municipality to set aside some or all of the units in an apartment complex for affordable housing. In return, they get a property tax abatement, typically 50%-100% of the tax bill.
Most people hear this and scoff: “Won’t the rent restrictions offset any savings on property taxes?”
Nope. At least not if the syndicator chooses the right deal.
For some properties, the market rents are already under or around the limit imposed by this affordable housing designation. That makes the property tax abatement all upside.
It boosts the NOI (net operating income) immediately upon purchase, without requiring a single swing of the hammer for renovations. Because commercial real estate is priced based on NOI, this raises the property value from Day 1.
Properties that enjoy the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) also save big on taxes. But those tax savings come with a downside: caps on what tenants can pay out-of-pocket for rent.
A few savvy real estate operators have noticed the loophole there: out-of-pocket. They know that they can collect full market rents from Section 8 renters, because Section 8 pays the bulk of the rent. That leaves the tenant’s out-of-pocket portion of the rent below the LIHTC limit.
So they buy a property based on its current (LIHTC-restricted) NOI, then they help renewing renters apply for Section 8 and fill in new vacancies with existing Section 8 voucher holders.
Within a few years, they’ve supercharged the NOI (and property value), again without a heavy lift on renovations. They can sell the property with the LIHTC tax break intact, for a much higher price.
I also like that this strategy is recession-resilient, since the bulk of the rent is paid by the government.
It seemed like everyone and their mother got into flipping cheap land parcels during the pandemic. I know I did.
But despite what the land gurus will tell you, there’s competition in this space. It takes a lot of letters to score one deal, and while it’s true you can double your money on a $2,500 land flip, that’s still just a $2,500 payout for all the work involved.
As you scale the pricing ladder for land flips, the profit margins actually decrease, unlike most types of businesses. At the highest end of the spectrum, land flippers compete with institutional investors.
But in the co-investing club, we’ve found that mid-level land flippers actually earn great returns. These investors typically buy parcels for $50,000-$250,000, and either flip the land as-is or do minor improvements or subdivisions (up to five lots).
For example, one land flipper we’ve invested with has paid out a 16% distribution like clockwork. We plan to invest with him again over the next month or two. He faces less competition at this price point, not having to stand out amidst the flood of letters from cheap land buyers nor the big money of institutional investors.
Another land flipper we’ve invested in adds another twist to his investments: He places a prefabricated home on the land and sells it to a first-time homebuyer.
These are not “mobile homes” or trailers. They’re manufactured homes, typically ranches, that are permanently fixed on a foundation. They sell retail on the MLS through a real estate agent.
The investor we’ve partnered with on these deals sells his homes for an average of $230,000, which is literally half the local median home price of $460,000. That provides fantastic protection against recessions, because demand for affordable housing at that price point won’t disappear, even in a downturn.
Similarly, some flippers have not seen any slowdown in demand or prices for their flips.
“Even with higher interest rates, the right cosmetic rehab can generate a 15% to 20% return in under six months,” shares Cameron Love of StrykCam REI with BiggerPockets. “We’re focusing on affordable properties where we can add value quickly and keep holding costs low, especially where buyer demand hasn’t cooled.”
Another flipper I know, Austin Glanzer of 717HomeBuyers, has found a niche flipping houses with low bedroom counts. He told BiggerPockets:
“If a 2-bed/1-bath layout is surrounded by 3-bed comps that are selling for $60,000 more, we’ll reconfigure walls, closets, and sometimes even unused porches to create that third bedroom. It’s a faster ROI than full rehabs, and appraisers love when you can point to a clean comp match. This strategy has helped us move properties at prices we couldn’t have touched without the extra bedroom.”
Most real estate investors can’t or won’t hassle with properties that have a cloud or other complication with the title. But those investors who can solve title problems can access enormous returns.
Ryan Hess, owner of Capstone Land Transfer, handles “hard” title cases for investors. “In 2025, we’ve seen more investors using creative financing and buying properties with messy title histories,” he told BiggerPockets. He even steps in and provides hard money loans for properties with messy titles, since investors often struggle to find loans for these. That leaves him able to charge higher interest rates, even as he resolves the title issue.
Another passive real estate investment we’ve made in our co-investing club this year was an industrial seller-leaseback.
The company owned the land and buildings where it operates, and to help finance its expansion, it sold the real estate and signed a lease contract on it. This particular company has a backlog of orders three years into the future, and their clients include the U.S. Navy—they’re not going anywhere.
Even if something catastrophic happened and they defaulted on their lease, the operator underwrote the deal to ensure replacement tenants would pay even more in rent.
We’ll enjoy a high distribution yield for the next few years, and then a big payout when the company either buys it back or the operator sells it to someone else.
You’ve probably never heard of some of these niches, and there are countless others neither you nor I know about. But the more you niche down as an investor, whether active (like some of the flippers above) or passive (like me), the higher the returns and the lower the risk.
In fact, when I look over potential deals, that’s exactly what I look for: asymmetric returns. We like to see high potential returns with moderate potential risk.
Those deals are out there. You just have to find them—or join a club of investors that finds and vets them together.
A Real Estate Conference Built Differently
October 5-7, 2025 | Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
For three powerful days, engage with elite real estate investors actively building wealth now. No theory. No outdated advice. No empty promises—just proven tactics from investors closing deals today. Every speaker delivers actionable strategies you can implement immediately.
Royal Bank of Canada reported record third-quarter earnings, though results also pointed to mounting stress in its mortgage portfolio.
The bank reported adjusted net income of $5.5 billion in the quarter ended July 31. Reported net income rose 21% to $5.4 billion, while diluted earnings per share increased to $3.84 from $3.26 a year earlier.
CEO Dave McKay said the results “demonstrate RBC’s relentless, long-term focus on our clients and our commitment to delivering on the bold growth ambitions we laid out at our recent Investor Day.”
Personal banking net income rose 22% to $1.9 billion as the bank’s residential mortgage balances reached $418 billion, up 3% from a year earlier, while home equity lines stood at $38 billion. Net interest margins widened to 2.61%, up 24 basis points year-over-year.
The bank saw 90+ day mortgage delinquencies rise to 31 basis points, from 29 bps last quarter and 24 bps a year earlier.
Delinquency rates were especially elevated in the country’s biggest housing markets. In the GTA, the share of mortgages more than 90 days past due has climbed from 27 basis points a year ago to 42 basis points in Q3. In Greater Vancouver, the rate rose from 20 to 27 basis points over the same period.
Provisions for credit losses rose to $881 million in the quarter, up from $659 million a year earlier, reflecting higher impairments in personal and commercial banking. Within the mortgage book, the allowance for credit losses inched higher to 0.16% of balances, compared with 0.15% in Q2 and 0.13% a year ago.
RBC also ended the quarter with a Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of 13.2%, unchanged from Q2 and well above regulatory minimums. It also returned $3.1 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks.
Even with impairments rising, most borrowers still hold significant equity in their homes. Uninsured mortgages originated in the quarter carried an average loan-to-value ratio of 70%, while the overall portfolio is much lower at 58%. The majority of RBC’s mortgage book (80%) is uninsured.
Fixed-rate loans account for roughly two-thirds of the bank’s residential mortgage balances, while variable-rate mortgages make up the remaining one-third, while the average remaining amortization is 19 years, down from 21 a year ago.
RBC’s base forecast assumes housing prices will rise 0.8% over the next 12 months and grow at a 3.5% annual pace in the following two to five years.
Visited 3,586 times, 249 visit(s) today
bank earnings big banks Dave McKay quarterly earnings rbc rbc amortizations RBC earnings RBC quarterly earnings Royal Bank
Last modified: August 27, 2025
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
At the recent Entrepreneur Level Up Conference, entrepreneurs from across the country gathered to gain strategies, inspiration and practical insights from a lineup of well-known successful entrepreneurs. I was honored to host the conference and partner with Entrepreneur.
One of the headliners, Robert Herjavec — investor, entrepreneur and star of Shark Tank — delivered a keynote packed with wisdom for founders navigating today’s unpredictable business landscape.
Herjavec’s insights were not abstract theories. They were hard-earned lessons forged in the trenches of entrepreneurship — lessons that spoke directly to the challenges and aspirations of the audience.
Here’s a breakdown of his most impactful takeaways.
Related: Want to Be a Better Leader? Show Employees You Care.
Herjavec emphasized that opportunities rarely arrive neatly packaged. They often hide in conversations, questions or unexpected feedback.
“Every answer opens a door to opportunity,” he said.
The message was clear: curiosity is a growth engine. Entrepreneurs who remain curious — asking questions and seeking insights — often discover pathways others overlook. Instead of dismissing a “no” or a difficult response, Herjavec urged attendees to look for the opportunity behind it. Sometimes, the follow-up question or the willingness to listen more deeply is what transforms rejection into possibility.
The myth of entrepreneurship often celebrates the “big idea” that transforms an industry overnight. But Herjavec reminded the audience that this is rarely the case.
“Most businesses evolve — they’re rarely revolutions.”
He explained that while breakthrough innovations capture headlines, the majority of sustainable businesses are built on incremental improvements, better execution and adapting existing ideas to new markets.
For entrepreneurs, this means it’s okay if your business doesn’t feel revolutionary from day one. What matters is staying committed to evolving, improving and listening to the market.
If there was a central theme in Herjavec’s talk, it was adaptability. He described winning businesses as those that thrive on adaptability — not just to survive shocks, but to seize growth in changing conditions.
“When knocked down, resilience plus adaptability equals survival.”
He acknowledged that setbacks are inevitable in entrepreneurship. The real test isn’t whether you’ll face challenges, but how you respond to them. Entrepreneurs who can adapt — whether by shifting strategy, reinventing a product or rethinking how they serve customers — are the ones who endure.
Herjavec didn’t shy away from a sobering reality: when businesses struggle, the root cause often lies with leadership.
“Show me a business in trouble, and I’ll show you a founder who has lost their way.”
He explained that when leaders lose focus, passion or clarity, the organization inevitably follows. A founder’s vision and energy cascade down into the culture, decision-making and execution. If leaders drift, so does the company.
For entrepreneurs, this is a call to self-reflection. Protect your clarity of purpose. Revisit why you started. And remember that your team looks to you not just for direction, but for inspiration.
While luck can play a role in any journey, Herjavec stressed that sustainable success is never accidental.
Behind every thriving business is intentionality — clear strategy, deliberate choices and consistent effort. He encouraged entrepreneurs to resist the temptation of shortcuts and quick wins, instead focusing on building systems and cultures that create lasting value.
This doesn’t mean every decision will be perfect, but it does mean success comes to those who plan, prepare and execute with purpose.
Related: 5 Strategies for Leaders to Future-Proof Their Workforce
As an entrepreneur who built and scaled a successful cybersecurity firm before becoming a television investor, Herjavec has lived through countless sales conversations. His perspective on sales was refreshingly straightforward.
“Sales equals uncovering client needs plus communicating how you meet them.”
He stressed that sales isn’t about pushing a product, talking endlessly or forcing a solution. It’s about understanding — truly listening to what clients need — and then clearly showing how your business delivers value.
Equally important, he warned against the temptation to oversell.
“Don’t oversell. Selling should feel natural: Am I providing value?”
In Herjavec’s view, sales is not about persuasion, but about alignment. When entrepreneurs shift their mindset from “closing deals” to “creating value,” selling becomes easier, more authentic and ultimately more successful.
Beyond adaptability, Herjavec spoke passionately about resilience. Entrepreneurship, he reminded the audience, is a marathon, not a sprint. The journey is filled with failures, rejections and setbacks that would crush many people.
But successful entrepreneurs are defined not by how often they fall, but by how quickly and effectively they get back up. Resilience isn’t just about surviving adversity — it’s about using it as fuel to keep moving forward.
When woven together, Herjavec’s insights form a practical framework for entrepreneurs:
For the entrepreneurs in the audience, these weren’t just abstract principles. They were reminders that the entrepreneurial journey — while hard — is navigable with the right mindset and tools.
Robert Herjavec’s keynote at the Entrepreneur Level Up Conference reinforced a timeless truth: entrepreneurship is not just about great ideas, but about great execution, resilience and human connection.
His words served as both a challenge and an encouragement. The challenge: entrepreneurs must remain vigilant, adaptable and intentional in their leadership. The encouragement: success is within reach for those willing to evolve, listen and persist.
For every founder wondering how to navigate uncertainty, Herjavec’s playbook is simple but powerful: stay curious, adapt relentlessly, lead with clarity and always create value.
At the end of the day, business isn’t about luck or shortcuts — it’s about resilience, adaptability and the courage to keep showing up
Don’t miss out next year — Click here to add your name to the Level Up waitlist and secure early access to tickets & updates.
Advertising Disclosure: When you buy something by clicking links within this article, we may earn a small commission, but it never affects the products or services we recommend. Hopefully, you understand the value of life insurance, but your adult children may not. Between student loans, rent, and careers just starting to take off, coverage often feels unnecessary to them. The problem is…
