How much does the macro picture actually change what you do?

Question

We got buried in macro data this week. Three jobs reports, mortgage rates bouncing around, and everyone arguing about whether the Fed cuts at all this year. It got me wondering how much any of it actually changes what you all do on the ground.

Are you watching rates, the Fed, and recession odds and timing your moves around them? Or are you in the camp that says ignore the noise, run the numbers, and buy whenever a deal pencils? I go back and forth on this one constantly. Tell me where you land and what made you land there.

I'll feature a few of my favorite answers in Thursday's Investor Brief Newsletter, so drop your take below.

Garrett Crosby · Answer

Macro changes my awareness but rarely my tactics at the deal level. The way I think about it: I watch macro data to understand the environment I'm operating in, not to time an entry or exit. Rates, fed signals, jobs data — those tell me about buyer demand, lending behavior, and seller psychology. But they don't tell me whether a specific deal on a specific street in LA or Ventura County makes sense for me.

The one area where macro genuinely changes what I do is on the debt side — when rates move, refinance projections shift, BRRRR timelines stretch, and the DSCR math on a potential acquisition changes. So I adjust underwriting assumptions. I don't adjust whether I'm actively looking or not. Every market cycle has motivated sellers, life events, and mispriced properties. The supply constraint in markets like LA is a structural condition, not a cyclical one — macro noise doesn't really change that fundamental.

Georgii Grigoriants · Answer

I think macro matters most when it starts changing financing behavior, holding costs, and buyer psychology at the local level.

On the ground, most investors I know are not changing strategy every time the Fed speaks. But they absolutely change underwriting assumptions when debt gets expensive, liquidity tightens, insurance spikes, or buyers become more cautious.

What’s interesting is that macro pressure doesn’t hit every market equally. Some supply-constrained markets can absorb higher rates much better because inventory stays structurally tight. Other markets with weaker fundamentals can unravel very quickly even if the property-level numbers initially looked strong.

So for me, macro is less about “timing the Fed” and more about understanding which markets still have enough structural demand and supply imbalance to protect the downside when the cycle gets harder.