Industrial property landlords in Cape Town and South Africa, generally market their properties on a non-exclusive broker representation basis. This is where the landlord gives an open mandate on his property to a number of brokers; in fact, to any broker who is interested in working on the property and bringing the landlord prospective tenants. While this works for most listed property funds and institutional landlords here, there is a move toward exclusive representation of the landlord and the tenant, often by different brokerage companies. I am in favour of exclusive representation, and prefer to work for a landlord on a sole mandate process. There are distinct advantages for the landlord in granting a sole or exclusive leasing mandate to Airport Property, as opposed to the disadvantages of leaving the mandate open to all brokers. These are as follows:
1. I first gain a thorough understanding of the industrial property and its unique features, and relate these to the market to be targeted. I then compile a custom marketing and advertising plan geared towards achieving the best price in the quickest time. All activity is monitored and controlled. With an open mandate, sellers or landlords run the risk that none of the brokers will put their money, time and effort into actively marketing or advertising the property, as there is no commitment to the client.
2. I interact directly with sellers to understand their requirements, and provide regular feedback. My customised CRM system allows sellers and landlords direct access to the property in our database, and all interaction can easily be viewed and monitored. Clients can be notified by email when tasks or key milestones have been achieved. This is opposed to open mandates, where properties tend to be added to a list and a website; no feedback is given to the industrial property seller or landlord. The property is marketed inconsistently and the seller, or landlord, has the inconvenience of coordinating and dealing with multiple agents or brokers.
3. I create an environment where buyers or tenants compete on the property, thereby maximizing the price. With open mandates, brokers compete, and with no commitment to the client, the price is usually compromised.
4. I give continuous feedback to our sellers, or landlords, which allows for careful price management, thereby maximising the realised price. With open mandates, mismanagement of the price can result in a lower price being realised.
5. With a sole mandate, I am are accountable to you for results. I put maximum effort into my industrial properties where I have sole mandates. This is opposed to open mandates, where brokers are less accountable and a lot less effort is put into marketing the property.
6. I negotiate strongly with potential buyers and tenants to get the highest possible price for your property. The disadvantage with an open mandate is that buyers and tenants seek out the agent or broker who will offer them the property at the lowest price.
7. With a sole mandate, there is no likelihood of commission disputes. I entertain the introductions of prospective tenants and purchasers from other brokers, and pay them commensurate commissions. With an open mandate, with more than one agency handling the property, the same buyer or tenant deals with more than one agent, and commission disputes often arise.
8. You have the peace of mind, knowing that only one responsible party has access to your property. With an open mandate, you grant multiple industrial property brokers access to the property, and besides the inconvenience of this, security is often compromised.