Which is harder, an owner or occupant assignment?

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.

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.