@Matteo Scali I’d improve the discipline of saying no. It’s easy to spend too much time trying to make a marginal deal work because of optimism, effort already invested, or fear of missing out.
A clearer buy box, conservative assumptions, and predetermined walk-away thresholds would make decisions faster and protect capital. The goal would be fewer deals that merely look exciting and more that still work when rent is lower, costs are higher, or the timeline runs longer than planned.
@Matteo Scali I’d improve the discipline of saying no. It’s easy to spend too much time trying to make a marginal deal work because of optimism, effort already invested, or fear of missing out.
A clearer buy box, conservative assumptions, and predetermined walk-away thresholds would make decisions faster and protect capital. The goal would be fewer deals that merely look exciting and more that still work when rent is lower, costs are higher, or the timeline runs longer than planned.
Thanks again, Divin, great point about the discipline of saying no. Setting walk-away limits before getting attached to a deal seems like it would save a lot of time and money. Having a clear buy box up front makes those decisions a lot easier. How do you usually run the numbers on a deal right now, with a spreadsheet, a calculator, or something else?
I think there could be a lot of value in tracking the deals you say no to as well. Six or twelve months later, you could compare what actually happened with the assumptions that made you walk away. Over time, that could show whether your thresholds are protecting you from bad deals or whether certain assumptions are consistently too conservative.
From where I sit as both an investor and a Realtor, the headache I see most isn't finding deals — it's the team breaking down after the deal is found. Contractors who ghost, property managers who don't answer, lenders who move slow. If I could fix one thing about how most investors operate, it would be building the vetted local team before the opportunity, not scrambling after it. Systems beat hustle every time: a contractor, a PM, a lender, and an investor-friendly agent who all pick up the phone. The investors I see scale smoothly aren't working harder — they're just never waiting on people. What's the one thing you'd fix about your process?
Thanks Ametria, I really like “systems beat hustle.” Building a trusted team before the deal makes a lot of sense, especially since contractors and lenders seem to be where things fall apart. I’m researching the problems investors run into before starting, and the people side keeps coming up the most. How did you find the reliable people on your team?
I think the next challenge is knowing who on that team is actually reliable over time. Someone can look great during the first few jobs, but response times, missed deadlines, cost changes and repeat issues eventually tell a much fuller story. A vetted team probably needs to keep being vetted even after the relationships are established.
@Matteo Scali - I wish I would have been more aggressive when I was buying earlier.... A good deal now is almost always a great deal later. I didn't buy enough "good" deal - I was waiting for the great deal.