Broker vetting & deal pitfalls

Require brokers to produce a list of closed leases and active listings from the past 12 months that include tenant names, lease start/end dates and $/RSF, then cross‑check those entries against LoopNet search results, CoStar comps and county recorder filings for signature dates and parties. (x.com) (loopnet.com) (costar.com) (sos.ca.gov) Demand the broker’s three most recent monthly marketing reports showing listing impressions, tour counts, qualified leads and executed offers and reconcile those metrics to platform analytics (LoopNet/CoStar) to verify reporting cadence and marketing reach. (loopnet.com) (costar.com) Flag any asset where more than 30% of rentable area rolls within 12 months or where the weighted average lease term (WALT) is under three years, since industrial market briefs from CBRE and JLL treat short WALT as elevated rollover risk tied to near‑term vacancy exposure. (cbre.com) (jll.com) Inspect lease abstracts specifically for assignability language and landlord‑consent mechanics, because restrictive assignment clauses and onerous consent conditions have been shown to prevent subleases or transfers during portfolio sales and increase transaction friction. (x.com) (dlapiper.com) Verify any advertised rent premium in a broker’s pitch by checking CoStar and CBRE Inland Empire / Los Angeles‑basin comparables and recent trades; brokers pushing rents materially above market comps without executed leases should trigger demand for tenant contact verification. (costar.com) (cbre.com) Build a short, LOI‑level due‑diligence window (for example a 10‑day verification period) that allows audit of rent rolls, review of estoppel certificates and a price/term adjustment if near‑term rollovers or assignability restrictions are confirmed. (marcusmillichap.com) (x.com)