As in let's say you you work with a REPE firm that only specializes in a certain property type and focuses on a specific major-metro or market (i.e. REPE firm that only invests in multifamily in NYC area). Is the modeling/deal experience on buy-side better all around rather than a debt/lending role that focuses on all property types and/or is not limited geographically?
I'm just thinking about after a couple years wanting to work with a different property type(s) or trying to break into another market.
Bump.. Interested as well.
A lot of that is opinion based. I would always think being on the buy-side or on the side of ownership is better than a debt role, but that doesn't mean it's a universal thought.
The issue with switching cities or property types is never the difficulty level, such as learning to model an office building in ARGUS isn't inherently more difficult than learning to model a MF building in Excel, it's the nuance. You lose so much of the insight you have into various sub-markets and neighborhoods as well as the insight into tiny little things for each property type that are essential but you only know from experience. You can end up taking a step back in knowledge for a while until you catch back up.
I don't mean to say it's impossible. Especially coming out of the recession, a lot of guys who made their money building big box stores shifted to mixed-use town center deals and are now winning ULI innovation awards whereas a decade ago they were the epitome of the sprawl they're now innovating on. Shifting from single-tenant retail with essentially warehouse construction to an absurdly convoluted combination of office, retail, MF, and hotel couldn't have been a cakewalk...so it does happen.
Markets seem to be easier to break into (on the buyside) than different property types. My firm explores new markets all the time. It generally starts with building a network with brokers, conducting some macro level research, then multiple visits for property and market tours to get a feel.
Can't speak for new property types. I would imagine that's much more complicated.
I found out it's pretty hard to switch to other property types unless you are still at the analyst level. Learning all the models is just one thing, but some firms definitely want you to have some real experiences
I think the general rule of thumb is that it is going to be easier to make that move earlier in your career. As an analyst/associate, your responsibilities of underwriting/market research, etc are going to be largely the same (even between property types, to an extent). When you move further up the ladder and your responsibilities are more related to deal sourcing/capital raising, a change of geography or product type is going to be a little harder. Broker/capital/market relationships are generally product-type and/or geographically specific - which will make the transition tougher if those are key to your job.
I made a single job change that involved switching markets and asset classes at the same time. It is definitely achievable. In my experience half the battle is directly acknowledging and countering the employer's concerns with respect to a) your ability to learn a new market; b) your projected longevity in that market and c) your understanding of the nuances in that different asset class. If you have the technical skill set and the deal experience to back it up, the new reps are no different.
How many years into your RE career did you make that switch?
4 yrs
Ducimus id temporibus et quos et sint in accusantium. Porro velit amet quisquam dolorum eius dolor.
Sit autem quisquam et occaecati eum est amet voluptas. Veniam facere officia aut voluptate aliquid. Est eos temporibus ut tenetur dolorum. Facere atque est minus et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...