Prepare Rather Than Predict
Plan across scenarios and preserve a buffer for forecasts that fail
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 97%
Prepare Rather Than Predict replaces a single confident forecast with a range of plausible futures. The decision-maker identifies the uncertain variables, constructs materially different scenarios, and evaluates how each would affect goals, resources, and deadlines. Probabilities and current judgments still matter, but they do not eliminate the need for resilience. The plan should preserve agility, define when action becomes necessary, and include enough buffer to survive an incorrect forecast without catastrophic damage. Fradkin applies this reasoning to proposed tax changes, inflation, markets, and rare disruptions. The mechanism is especially valuable because supposedly exceptional tail events recur in different forms. Its output is not certainty; it is a decision and resource posture capable of adapting as new evidence reveals which scenario is unfolding.
Origin
Steve Fradkin presents preparation, multiple scenarios, agility, and buffers as Northern Trust's response to uncertain taxes, inflation, markets, and recurring crises. Extracted from Masters in Business.
Core principles
- 01Prediction is less reliable than preparation
- 02Tail events occur more often than their label implies
- 03Use probabilities without treating them as certainties
- 04Preserve agility as conditions change
- 05Leave a buffer for being wrong
How to run it
- 1
Name the uncertainty
Define the variable that cannot be known reliably, such as inflation, tax legislation, market direction, or operational disruption. Clarify the decision it affects.
Pro tip Frame the uncertainty narrowly enough to model but broadly enough to include meaningful outcomes.
Watch out Do not disguise an assumption as a known fact.
- 2
Build distinct scenarios
Create low, medium, and high cases or another small set of materially different futures. Include disruptive outcomes even when they appear unlikely.
Pro tip Focus on scenarios that would change the decision, not minor variations.
Watch out A set of nearly identical forecasts provides little protection.
- 3
Measure consequences
Estimate how each scenario affects goals, cash needs, taxes, operations, and downside exposure. Identify irreversible losses and time-sensitive opportunities.
Pro tip Prioritize consequences that could become catastrophic or impossible to reverse.
Watch out Precision in estimates should not be confused with accuracy.
- 4
Choose a robust posture
Select actions that perform acceptably across scenarios and preserve options where possible. Make time-sensitive choices only after checking capacity and personal objectives.
Pro tip Prefer reversible steps when evidence remains weak.
Watch out Preparing for every imaginable event can become prohibitively expensive.
- 5
Create triggers and buffers
Define evidence, dates, or thresholds that will prompt a change in action. Maintain spare liquidity, capacity, or time so an incorrect forecast is survivable.
Pro tip Size the buffer around the harm of being wrong, not confidence in being right.
Watch out A plan without decision triggers can remain static while conditions deteriorate.
- 6
Monitor and adapt
Update probabilities as new information arrives and shift resources when a scenario becomes more or less likely. Preserve the underlying goals while adapting the implementation.
Pro tip Schedule reviews before deadlines force a rushed decision.
Watch out Do not cling to the original forecast to protect ego or sunk costs.
In the wild
A family may lose access to a larger lifetime gift-tax exemption if proposed legislation takes effect. Rather than claiming to know whether the law will pass, the adviser evaluates the family's capacity and desire to make a gift, compares the consequences under both legal regimes, and reaches a decision before the deadline while preserving adequate resources for the family's own goals.
→ The family makes a deliberate, capacity-tested choice despite unresolved legislation.
An investor models low, medium, and high inflation instead of committing to the transitory or persistent inflation narrative. Each case is tested against spending, fixed-income exposure, and growth assets. The investor retains liquidity and defines review triggers as economic data changes.
→ The portfolio can adapt without depending on a single inflation forecast.
Common mistakes
Betting everything on one forecast
A single prediction creates fragility when markets, policy, or disruptive events develop differently than expected.
Ignoring recurring tail risk
Calling each crisis a once-in-a-lifetime event obscures how frequently severe disruptions occur in different forms.
Planning without a buffer
Even a multi-scenario plan can fail if there is no spare capacity to absorb an incorrect judgment.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for investors, families, and organizations facing uncertain markets, policy changes, inflation, or disruptive events.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when a decision has only one known outcome or when maintaining optionality costs more than the plausible downside.
From the transcript
“I think our starting point on behalf of our clients is to prepare rather than predict.”
“Will we use multi scenario modeling? The reality is no one knows”
“you have to plan and adapt and leave yourself a buffer for when you are wrong”
From the episode
Steven L. Fradkin on the Creation of Wealth (Podcast)
Steven L. Fradkin