As
commercial real estate professionals, our clients typically hire us for one of
a handful of assignments. Broadly speaking, those assignments fall into two
categories: the occupant side and the owner side.
You
recognize an occupant requirement when a company is searching for space to
occupy, what we commonly call buyer representation or tenant representation.
On
the other side of the table, an owner hires us to fill a vacancy with a tenant
or a buyer, or depending on the situation, to sell a leased building to an
investor.
In
my practice, I do both.
Which
assignment is more difficult and why?
My
short answer is, it depends. But since I have a bit more column space, let us
explore the question more thoroughly, shall we?
Let
us begin with the occupant side.
Representing
a tenant or buyer often feels like detective work. You are handed a requirement
that may or may not be fully formed. “We need 20,000 square feet.” “We want to
own instead of lease.” “We are bursting at the seams.” Those statements are
starting points, not conclusions.
The
challenge is uncovering the true need. Is the space requirement based on
headcount today or projected growth tomorrow? Is ownership driven by balance
sheet strategy, ego, or a long term operational advantage? Is the urgency real
or manufactured?
Occupant
representation requires patience, probing questions, and occasionally the
courage to slow a client down. Many times the hardest part is protecting them
from themselves. I have seen companies chase shiny buildings in the wrong
location, overcommit to space they cannot afford, or underestimate the cost of
relocation. The difficulty lies in aligning financial reality, operational
necessity, and emotional desire into a decision that makes sense five and ten
years from now.
Now
consider the owner side.
Representing
an owner introduces a different kind of complexity. The product exists. The
vacancy is real. The carrying costs are tangible. Time is measurable in monthly
mortgage payments and operating expenses.
Here,
the challenge is often market driven. You cannot manufacture tenant demand. You
cannot force interest rates lower. You cannot single handedly compress cap
rates or accelerate absorption.
An
owner’s expectations may be shaped by yesterday’s market rather than today’s.
Rents achieved two years ago may not be achievable now. A building that was
once the belle of the ball may suddenly compete with newer, more functional
inventory.
The
difficulty on the owner side is managing expectations while protecting value.
Pricing too aggressively can result in prolonged vacancy. Pricing too
conservatively can leave money on the table. Marketing strategy, timing,
positioning, and negotiation all become critical levers.
So
which is more difficult?
When
representing an occupant, you are often managing ambiguity. The assignment is
fluid. The criteria can shift. Corporate leadership can change direction
midstream. You are guiding strategy as much as executing it.
When
representing an owner, you are managing exposure and risk. Every day a space
sits vacant, there is a cost. Every rejected offer carries consequence. You are
balancing urgency with discipline.
In
strong markets, owner representation can feel easier because demand masks
imperfections. In soft markets, it can feel like pushing a boulder uphill.
Conversely, occupant representation can be simpler when options are plentiful
and leverage is strong, and far more challenging when inventory is scarce and
competition is fierce.
The
truth is that neither side is inherently more difficult. They are difficult in
different ways.
One
requires uncovering the truth behind a requirement. The other requires
confronting the truth about the market.
One
demands internal clarity. The other demands external realism.
Perhaps
the better question is not which assignment is more difficult, but which
responsibility is greater.
In
both cases, our role is the same. We are fiduciaries. We are counselors. We are
translators between emotion and economics.
Whether
I am helping a business secure a home for its operations or assisting an owner
in monetizing an asset, the stakes are significant. Jobs are affected. Capital
is deployed. Long term plans are shaped.
So
when asked which side is harder, I return to my original answer. It depends.
It
depends on the market. It depends on the client. It depends on the expectations
brought to the table.
What
does not depend on anything is the need for preparation, honesty, and
experience. On either side of the equation, difficulty tends to diminish when
clarity increases.
And
clarity, more often than not, is what we are truly hired to provide.
Yesterday, I sat on our daughter’s sofa festooned
with big game regalia. You see, it was Super Bowl Sunday, they coined “Harper
Bowl.” A cute and effective way to frame the big game. The decibel level was
akin to an Elton John concert, not because of the TV volume but from the
excited youngsters born from close to twenty families.
As the LX logo appeared, what dawned on me was this.
I have watched EVERY Super Bowl since its inception in 1967 as the Packers of
Green Bay squared off against the Kansas City Chiefs.
But as my thoughts drifted to the week ahead, I
wondered what commercial real estate lessons would be learned from this year’s
extravaganza. Stay tuned, there were several.
For this exercise, I looked at the game through the
lens of the Seattle Seahawks. Not the pageantry. Not the commercials. Not the
halftime show. But the way championship teams are built and how that mirrors
success and failure in commercial real estate.
Here is what stood out.
Championships Are Built Long Before Game Day. No Super Bowl is won on Sunday alone. It is the product of years of
drafting, development, coaching continuity, discipline, and systems. The
Seahawks’ success, has never been about a single star. It is about preparation
and patience.
Commercial real estate is no different. Deals do not
close because of one heroic phone call. They close because of months or years
of relationship building, market knowledge, repetition, and process. By the
time a transaction reaches the finish line, the real work has already been
done.
Defense Matters More Than Flash. The Seahawks’ identity has long been rooted in defense,
controlling the line, limiting mistakes, and forcing the opponent to earn every
yard. It is not glamorous, but it wins games.
In commercial real estate, defense is underwriting,
due diligence, lease language, timelines, and managing expectations. It is
knowing when not to do a deal. The brokers who last are rarely the flashiest.
They are the ones who protect their clients and their reputations.
Systems Beat Talent Alone. Every Super Bowl roster is filled with talented players. What
separates champions is how those players perform within a system. Assignment
football. Do your job. Trust the structure.
This is where many brokers wash out. Talent without
structure leads to inconsistency. Systems, how you source, qualify, control,
execute, and close, create repeatable success. The best brokers do not rely on
memory or motivation. They rely on process.
Special Teams Decide Close Games. Games often turn on field position, penalties, clock management, and
execution when no one is watching. Special teams do not get headlines, but they
swing outcomes.
In our business, special teams are follow-ups,
summaries, documentation, communication cadence, and closing logistics. Clients
remember how a deal felt. Sloppy execution at the end can undo months of great
work.
The Team Always Wins or Loses Together. No one wins a Super Bowl alone. Coaches, players, trainers,
scouts, and support staff all matter.
The same holds true in commercial real estate. The
most durable careers are built with transaction coordinators, analysts,
mentors, partners, and cooperative brokers. Lone wolves burn out. Teams endure.
As the last confetti fell and Monday arrived, the
Super Bowl faded quickly. But the lessons do not have to. Whether on the field
or in the marketplace, success is rarely accidental. It is built deliberately,
patiently, and with discipline.
And that is a game worth studying.
Every
real estate deal has a clock. Sometimes that clock moves fast. Sometimes it
slows down because the buyer needs time.
That
time might be for a board approval. It might be for a tax deferred exchange to
line up. It might be for a buyer of land who wants to secure entitlements
before taking ownership.
When
that happens, sellers usually ask the same question.
Why
should I wait?
The
answer depends on the market.
In a Strong Market, Time
Is a Concession. In a strong market, sellers have
options. Buyers are plentiful. Properties move quickly. When a buyer asks for
extra time, it feels unnecessary and risky.
That
reaction makes sense.
Waiting
in a strong market means giving up flexibility. It means passing on other
buyers. It means betting that nothing changes while the clock runs.
That
is why sellers in strong markets rarely agree to wait unless they are
compensated.
That
compensation can come in several forms.
A
higher price.
Money
that becomes non refundable.
Clear
deadlines that limit how long the seller is committed.
In a
strong market, time has value. If a buyer needs more of it, the seller should
be paid for it.
In a Weak Market, Time
Can Be an Advantage. Down markets tell a different
story. When activity slows, buyers become cautious. Financing tightens.
Fewer offers come in. Sellers often discover that speed is no longer the prize
it once was.
In
those markets, a buyer willing to work through approvals or conditions can be
valuable, not problematic.
Time
in a weaker market can mean progress instead of stagnation. It can mean a deal
that moves forward while others sit still. It can mean locking in a committed
buyer when alternatives are uncertain.
In
those situations, waiting may reduce risk rather than increase it.
Not All Delays Are the
Same. Regardless of the market, sellers should understand why a buyer
needs time.
There
is a big difference between a buyer who must complete a specific step and one
who is simply unsure.
Approvals
with clear timelines are different from open ended requests. A tax deferred
exchange with a signed sale is different from one that is still theoretical.
Entitlements already in process are different from those that have not yet
begun.
The
clearer the reason and the timeline, the safer the delay.
What Sellers Should Focus
On. Whether the market is strong or weak, sellers should focus on
three simple questions.
Is
the buyer committed.
Is
the timeline clear.
Am I
being protected while I wait.
If
those questions are answered well, waiting can make sense. If they are not, it
usually does not.
The Bottom Line. In
strong markets, waiting is a concession and should be treated as one.
In
weaker markets, waiting can be a strategy.
The
key is understanding the difference and structuring the deal accordingly.
Time
is neither good nor bad. It is simply a tool.
Used
properly, it can close deals. Used carelessly, it can cost them.
Allen C. Buchanan,
SIOR, is a principal with Lee
& Associates Commercial Real Estate Services in Orange. He can be reached
at abuchanan@lee-associates.com or 714.564.7104. His website
is allencbuchanan.blogspot.com.
