In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum discusses the critical difference between proactive and reactive teams in the context of property investment deals, arguing that a “serious portfolio team is built before the deal, not after it.” Curum, a proponent of rigorous decision-making processes, highlights a common pattern he observes in failed or problematic transactions: the absence of key stakeholders during crucial decision points.
Curum emphasizes that many teams function merely as “damage report” units, stepping in only after issues have surfaced. He contrasts this with a truly proactive team, whose primary function is to prevent problems before they arise. According to Curum, the deals that become painful are often those where the individuals with the foresight to flag potential risks were not involved when the initial offer was made.
“A serious portfolio team is built before the deal, not after it.”
The core of Curum’s argument centers on the necessity of a pre-deal evaluation framework. He outlines four essential questions that a robust team must answer before any offer is submitted:
The Four Pillars of Proactive Deal Evaluation
Finance
Curum stresses the importance of financial due diligence. This includes not only assessing current funding capabilities but also stress-testing the investment against potential market shifts, such as interest rate fluctuations. As he puts it, the team must determine, “can this be funded, stress-tested, and survived if rates shift?”
Legal
Before financial commitments are made, legal clarity is paramount. Curum points out the need to ensure that issues related to title, lease agreements, and the overall legal structure are resolved. He questions whether the legal aspects are clear, asking, “is title, lease, and structure clear before money is committed?”
Demand
Underpinning a successful rental property is a solid demand case. Curum advocates for basing this assessment on real market data rather than optimistic projections. “does the rental case hold up against real listings, not wishful thinking?” he asks, underscoring the need for grounded analysis.
Works
Finally, Curum addresses the physical condition of the property. Understanding the actual repair and maintenance needs and obtaining honest cost estimates is crucial. He prompts readers to consider, “what does this property really need, and what does that cost at honest prices?”
Curum posits that if any of these four questions remain unanswered at the offer stage, the entity in question is not a functioning team but rather an “audience watching the deal unfold.” This perspective shifts the focus from post-deal troubleshooting to pre-deal risk mitigation.
“If any one of those four is unanswered when the offer goes in, you don’t have a team. You have an audience watching the deal unfold.”
To further test the effectiveness of a team’s setup, Curum proposes a direct question: “Would you still offer if the worst concern on the table proved true?” He argues that if the answer is no, the team was effectively assembled after the problems became apparent, rather than before.
“The fastest test: Would you still offer if the worst concern on the table proved true?”
Curum concludes by encouraging self-assessment among his readers, urging them to identify the weakest area within their current team structure – be it finance, legal, demand, or works – and to reflect on past experiences that may have highlighted these weaknesses. He suggests that understanding these vulnerabilities is the first step towards building a truly effective, proactive deal-making team before the next offer is made.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Nick Curum on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on June 20, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →