Nick Curum on Shifting from Instinct to Process in Tenant Selection

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum discusses a critical shift in decision-making, particularly relevant to property rentals but applicable broadly: moving from instinct-based choices to a structured process. Curum shares his own early mistakes in property management, highlighting how a focus on likability led to significant stress and poor outcomes.

The Pitfalls of ‘Likeability’ in Decision-Making

Curum recounts his initial experience renting out a property, where he met numerous potential tenants and ultimately selected the one he “liked the most.” This approach, he explains, was fundamentally flawed because it prioritized subjective feelings over objective risk assessment. As Curum notes:

“Here is what I got wrong. I treated it like meeting a friend. I was reading the room for warmth and ease. I should have been reading for risk.”

He elaborates that a pleasant conversation, while indicating a person might be agreeable, offers no insight into their long-term reliability as a tenant. Factors like consistent rent payment in later months or how they handle property issues are not revealed through casual rapport-building. Curum argues that this reliance on instinct can be a costly error, turning a simple transaction into a prolonged ordeal.

Implementing a Process for Better Decisions

The core of Curum’s advice centers on a deliberate change in methodology. He advocates for replacing gut feelings with a systematic evaluation process. This shift, though seemingly obvious, took him years to fully adopt. Curum outlines three key checks he now performs before considering other factors:

Affordability Over Charm

Curum emphasizes that financial capacity is paramount. The numbers associated with a tenant’s ability to pay are objective and less prone to the biases that ‘charm’ can introduce. He states, “Affordability before charm. The numbers do not perform for you.” This means verifying income and financial stability rigorously.

Evidence Over Story

Next, Curum stresses the importance of corroborating information. Instead of accepting a tenant’s narrative at face value, he insists on verifying it through references and documentation. As Curum points out:

“Evidence before story. References and documents either match what they told you, or they do not.”

This step helps to uncover inconsistencies or outright falsehoods that might be missed if relying solely on a compelling personal account.

Consistency Over Urgency

Curum also advises caution against high-pressure tactics. He suggests that a tenant’s insistence on rapid decision-making is often a red flag, indicating underlying issues they might be concealing. According to Curum:

“Consistency before urgency. Pressure to move fast is rarely about you. It is usually about something they are not saying.”

He frames this as a crucial step in avoiding a tenant who might present an urgent need but ultimately become a significant problem.

The Ultimate Decision-Making Filter

Curum concludes by sharing a final question he asks himself before finalizing a rental agreement: “Would I defend this decision to a lender or insurer?” This external validation test serves as a powerful final check. If the decision cannot be justified to a third party concerned with risk and compliance, Curum believes it’s not a sound decision. He succinctly puts it: “If the answer is no, it is not a yes.” This rigorous process, Curum implies, transforms tenant selection from a subjective gamble into a defensible, data-driven decision, mitigating the “time, money, and stress problem” that the wrong tenant can create.