Centralized leasing across a portfolio versus a person in the office at every property

Question

An investor moving into a first apartment position often runs into this fork when reading operating models: centralized leasing versus on-site leasing. The centralized version has one leasing team offsite covering several communities, handling inquiries, self-guided tours with smart locks, applications, and screening, while each site keeps a manager and maintenance but no dedicated leasing consultant. The case for it is payroll: a leasing consultant runs 42k to 55k plus benefits, and on a 120 unit property with 40 move-ins a year, that is close to a full salary for what functions as half a job. Centralized teams also answer the phone at 7pm on a Sunday, and response time within an hour is one of the factors most consistently tied to conversion. The technology to run it, a CRM plus self-tour hardware plus ID verification, is real upfront cost that gets cheaper per door the more doors it is spread across. The on-site version relies on someone who knows the property, walks the units, and closes in person. The case for it is that a centralized agent has never seen the unit being described, cannot tell a prospect which building gets afternoon sun, and cannot recover a bad tour in real time. Self-guided touring also changes screening and fraud exposure, and application fraud has become a bigger problem generally. On older product with irregular floor plans, remote leasing tends to lose deals it should not lose. The honest answer is that unit count changes the calculus significantly. Centralization tends to pencil above roughly 300 to 500 doors in a concentrated submarket, where the payroll savings and technology spend amortize well. Below that, the loss of local product knowledge and tour recovery usually outweighs the savings, especially on older or quirky inventory.

gregpowell66 · Answer

Hardware failure rate is what the centralized model tends to underprice. Smart locks on 120 units, battery replacement, the two doors that stop reporting every winter, and someone still has to physically go fix them. If the on-site headcount is down to a manager and one tech, that is the tech's afternoon, and his afternoon was supposed to be a work order. Older product is also where remote leasing hurts most, and the reason is variation between units. On a 1970s building unit 204 has the good kitchen and 206 does not, and a centralized agent quoting off a floor plan code will put someone in 206 at 204's price. You hear about it at renewal.

luis_carrera · Answer

Running the numbers settles this better than an opinion would. On a 120 unit at 45% turnover, that's 54 new leases a year. At a 20% tour to lease rate that's 270 tours, so about 22 a month. A leasing consultant can handle that in maybe six working days. The payroll is buying availability, not volume. But the centralized version only saves money if the salary is actually removed, and most versions of it keep a community manager who ends up doing tours anyway when the self-tour breaks. That's maybe $30k saved against $18k a year in software and hardware amortization, plus a worse job for the community manager. Under about 200 doors on a single site, the savings rarely look like more than noise. Over three sites in the same submarket it flips hard, because then one centralized team covers 400 doors and two salaries are genuinely gone. So the answer is geography, not unit count. Doors in one drive time can centralize. Doors that are scattered are paying for both models.

jessreyes12 · Answer

Asking the thing I'd be embarrassed to ask in a room: who shows up when a prospect on a self-guided tour finds a resident's door propped open, or worse? I understand the payroll math, I just can't picture the liability side of letting strangers into a building with a code and nobody there. @nicole_adeyemi did either of your partners get an answer on that from an insurer? Feels like the kind of question that has a state-by-state answer and an underwriting answer that don't match.

Centralized leasing across a portfolio versus a person in the office at every property

3 replies