Rodschinson Investment

13/06/2026

A €15M Student Housing (PBSA) opportunity looked prime. After 4 hours of cross-checking, the story changed.
The brochure said, "Prime CBD Brussels." 200 beds. 5.0% net yield. Institutional-quality ticket.

At first glance, the deal looked clean. Then came the question that matters most in PBSA:
How “prime” is prime?

The location was marketed as 5 minutes by bike to ULB. The real user experience was closer to an 18-minute walk. That difference may sound small. In student housing, it can move the yield by 50 to 75 basis points.

After benchmarking 40 comparable assets across Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, the fair yield range was closer to 5.6–5.8%.
Result: a potential €1.8M to €2.4M overpay avoided.

The asset was still interesting. The pricing was the problem. This is where many PBSA investors lose money before the deal even reaches committee:
One optimistic location claim, one aggressive yield assumption, and one “prime” label repeated too many times.

In PBSA, the best deals are rarely won by reading the brochure faster. They are won by challenging the assumptions earlier.
At Rodschinson Investment, we help investors, family offices, and owners pressure-test PBSA opportunities before capital is committed.

Want the 12-point prime PBSA verification checklist? Send us “PBSA” and we’ll share it.

12/06/2026

11/06/2026

Most cross-border PBSA deals are not killed by the asset. They are killed by the structure.

A portfolio can look strong on yield, occupancy and location, then lose value through tax leakage, transfer tax exposure, VAT recovery issues or weak holding-company substance.
In one European PBSA case, the projected after-tax IRR moved from 11.2% to 9.7% after structuring review. That is the difference between a clean acquisition and a mispriced deal.

For PBSA investors, the lesson is simple: structuring should happen at the term sheet stage, not after the lawyers start cleaning the file.

At Rodschinson, this is exactly the type of risk we believe investors need to screen earlier.

Are you using AI benchmarks on cross-border M&A structures yet or still running it 100% manually?

09/06/2026

Co-living is entering a new capital cycle in Europe. The question many owners, developers, and operators are asking right now:

Who is actually funding the next wave?
We mapped 47 publicly disclosed co-living deals from 2024 to 2026, then grouped the most active allocators by thesis, ticket size and geography.

The market is becoming more segmented.
Institutional REITs are still focused on stabilized core assets.
Operator platforms are scaling through management intensity and M&A.
Conversion specialists are targeting obsolete offices and tired stock.
Greenfield developers are taking longer-horizon risk where demand is deep.

Capital is available; the real challenge is matching the right asset with the right capital partner. A stabilized asset in Belgium does not speak to the same buyer as a conversion opportunity in the UK. A platform-led strategy in Spain does not attract the same capital as a core income product in the Netherlands. This is where most opportunities lose time:

Wrong buyer list.
Wrong ticket size.
Wrong investment thesis.
Wrong timing.

At Rodschinson Investment, we track mandates, active buyers, and capital appetite across European real estate markets to help owners and investors move faster with the right counterparties.

If you are holding a co-living asset, conversion opportunity, or development pipeline in Europe, we can help identify which allocators are most likely to engage.
Send us the word "ALLOCATORS," and we’ll share how we map the capital behind co-living.