The Hidden Practice That Can Reduce Investment Sale Proceeds

Written by:

Steve Marcinuk

Date:

16 Dec 2025

Share

Share via Facebook

Share via Linkedin

Share via X

Copy to clipboard

A longstanding practice in commercial real estate may be costing property sellers hundreds of thousands of dollars without their knowledge, according to Connecticut broker Jeff Kravet. Major national brokerages, he says, routinely refuse to cooperate with competing brokers on investment sales, limiting the pool of buyers and often resulting in lower sale prices for their clients.

Jeff Kravet, president of Kravet Realty LLC in Stamford, says the practice is widespread among the industry’s largest brokerages. Many major firms refuse to co-broke investment sales, insisting they can reach all relevant buyers internally. Kravet disputes that claim, arguing that no single brokerage can realistically access the entire buyer pool. “Nobody knows every buyer,” he says.

Kravet explains that this practice is rooted in a misalignment of incentives: large brokerages are motivated to keep the entire commission, even if it means not exposing a property to the maximum number of qualified buyers. As a result, listings handled exclusively by one firm often miss significant segments of the market.

Hidden Conflicts in the Brokerage Model

Kravet says this conflict is often invisible to sellers, who are rarely told how brokerage incentives shape the marketing of their property. Large firms, he argues, have built-in conflicts tied to keeping deals in-house, while his firm avoids those pressures. “There are inherent conflicts behind the scenes,” Kravet says.

The conflict becomes clear in the way deals are marketed. When a major firm secures an exclusive listing, the property is typically marketed only to their internal buyers and direct contacts. Outside brokers who represent qualified buyers are often denied access or discouraged from participating.

Kravet says he recently competed against Cushman & Wakefield for a listing in Westport, Connecticut, where he centered his pitch on maximizing the seller’s price rather than preserving commissions. He argues that sellers care about outcomes, not how fees are divided, and that broader buyer exposure is more likely to produce a higher sale price. “The client cares about the result,” Kravet says.

Kravet adds that he co-brokes every investment listing, viewing commission sharing as secondary to meeting the seller’s objectives. If splitting fees expands the buyer pool and improves pricing, he says, it serves the client’s best interest.

A Level Playing Field – Except on Cooperation

The debate over co-brokerage comes at a time when technology has made information access nearly universal in commercial real estate. Kravet contends that the traditional advantage of large firms – proprietary data – has largely disappeared.

Kravet argues that information access is no longer a competitive advantage for large brokerages. With platforms like CoStar and LoopNet widely available, market data has become largely standardized, allowing smaller firms to offer the same level of transparency as national players. “The playing field is level,” Kravet says.

This shift means that boutique brokers are now able to compete with national firms on all aspects except one: their willingness to cooperate with competitors to serve the client’s interests.

Kravet says large firms once held an information advantage, but that edge has largely disappeared as market data has become widely accessible. Today, he argues, differentiation comes from execution—how brokers interpret information, negotiate deals, and reach the right buyers—rather than from access to data alone. “Without execution, the data is useless,” Kravet says.

Market Impact of the No Co-Broke Policy

The refusal of major firms to co-broke has implications beyond individual deals. If large portions of Connecticut’s investment sales market remain confined within single brokerage networks, price discovery is less efficient and market liquidity can suffer.

Kravet’s approach offers a different model. By inviting cooperation from all brokers, boutique firms can often assemble larger and more diverse buyer pools than even the largest national brokerages. This is particularly important for specialized assets or unique properties, where the qualified buyers may be few and scattered across different firms.

For sellers, the decision becomes whether to prioritize a recognizable brand or to maximize exposure to the greatest possible number of buyers. Kravet argues that these goals are often at odds. “Working with a big name doesn’t guarantee the best price if your property isn’t shown to every potential buyer,” he says.

A Cooperative Model in Practice

Kravet Realty has built its investment sales practice around systematic co-brokerage, openly splitting commissions with any broker who brings a qualified buyer. This approach recently helped Kravet win a competitive pitch against Cushman & Wakefield for a Westport property, where sellers made clear they valued maximum exposure over exclusive representation.

“When I pitched that, it resonated with the sellers,” Kravet says. “They said, ‘We don’t care how your commission is split, but we do care about getting the best price.'”

Whether this cooperative approach will catch on more broadly may depend on how quickly sellers connect broker cooperation with higher sale prices. For now, Kravet’s model remains an exception in a market where most major firms continue to keep listings in-house and restrict outside broker participation.

As technology continues to eliminate information barriers, the willingness of brokers to cooperate may become the real test of who is working in the seller’s best interest. For Connecticut sellers, Kravet believes, understanding this hidden conflict could be the difference between an average deal and the best possible outcome.