Why agent pro formas so often fail to move an offer number
A pattern worth naming: investment summaries from agents tend to share the same three problems. Vacancy at 5%, a number typed rather than sourced. Maintenance and capex folded into one line at 8% of gross rent, which on a 1960s building with original cast iron drains doesn't hold up. And management at zero, as though an owner's hours are free and a future buyer would price it that way. A better approach is to ask an agent for exactly two things instead: sold comps with the finish level described, and whatever they know about the seller's timeline. Those two inputs are the ones that actually move an offer number, far more reliably than a full pro forma. Which raises the real question. If the agent's own analysis rarely gets used, what is an investor-friendly agent worth paying for? The candidate answers are first look at off-market inventory, sold data and comp judgment that's hard to replicate independently, the contract and deadline machinery of getting a deal closed, and the referral network of lenders, contractors, and property managers. That likely splits by experience. Someone early in their investing tends to value the machinery. Someone with a longer track record tends to value the phone call before the listing goes live. Worth polling the room on which one people would actually pay a premium for, not the one that sounds most virtuous.
What would you pay an investor-friendly agent a premium for?
22 votes