Property leasing shifts from execution to risk control

As Germany’s real estate markets adjust to sustained tenant bargaining power, leasing is shedding its long-standing role as a downstream operational task. REFIRE attended a recent panel discussion hosted by RUECKERCONSULT on the interface between asset management and property management. The discussion highlighted how, in both residential and commercial real estate, leasing has become a central risk variable, with direct implications for refinancing, stabilisation and asset value.

What emerged was not a simple clash between asset managers and property managers. Instead, the discussion - deftly moderated by Dr. Kathrin Dräger - revealed a market grappling with tighter absorption, more demanding tenants and a growing need for internal discipline. In that environment, informal processes that once functioned tolerably well are increasingly exposed.

Leasing, not marketing

One theme ran through almost every contribution: leasing today is less about execution speed and more about managing downside risk.

In commercial real estate, that shift has been particularly stark. Martin Schubert, Head of Letting Management Berlin at HIH Real Estate, described how the balance of power has reversed in recent years. Where owners once chose between tenants, they are now competing for attention. “You used to have one space and ten tenants,” he said. “In the worst case today, it’s ten spaces and one tenant.” The consequence is that leasing has become consultative and strategic, requiring far more input on use concepts, tenant needs and alternative scenarios than in the past.

Stefan Wege, Head of Office Letting NRW at Colliers, echoed that assessment. Brokers, he argued, are no longer engaged primarily as marketers, but increasingly as sparring partners. Leasing decisions now involve weighing risks, modelling outcomes and advising owners on how far to adapt product and pricing to secure demand. The traditional division between marketing and strategy has blurred.

Yet if the tenant market has changed the nature of leasing, the panel was equally clear about where processes tend to break down. The most common friction point is not disagreement between asset management and property management in principle, but a lack of clearly defined interfaces in practice.

Schubert warned repeatedly against parallel communication structures. When multiple internal and external parties engage tenants without clear hierarchy, gaps open quickly. “What is fatal is when several contact persons are involved,” he said. “Then things are discussed that others don’t know about — and that’s where problems start.” Technical advice given without economic oversight, for example on fit-out specifications, can quietly undermine a business plan long before the implications are recognised.

The consensus was that tenant markets punish such informality. Clear decision rights, a single empowered contact and early agreement on economic limits are no longer optional. Where governance remains vague, leasing problems tend to metastasise into financial ones.

Why scale makes leasing harder

The discussion also challenged another entrenched assumption in the German market: that strong demand, particularly in residential, makes leasing simpler. In practice, the opposite is often true.

Sascha Nöske, CEO of STRATEGIS, was blunt in dismissing the idea of “self-running” assets. Even in high-demand locations, large residential schemes require intense operational effort. “With good objects, we run to the property four times before a contract is signed,” he said. “A self-runner where you go in once and come out with a lease — that doesn’t exist.”

The real danger lies in pricing strategy. Large, heterogeneous projects require finely calibrated rent differentiation. If early units are let too cheaply, later units can become unmarketable at required levels. “That is total damage,” Nöske warned. “You end up with a half-let project and have to discount the rest.”

From a portfolio perspective, Jürgen Hau, Managing Director of Industria Immobilien, reinforced that complexity does not disappear with scale — it multiplies. First lettings behave very differently depending on location, tenant profile and expectations. “The wish is always to have a rental contract after one visit,” he noted. “But that is often not feasible — especially outside the A cities.” For institutional owners operating across regions and vintages, early goal definition and disciplined execution matter more than market momentum.

ESG, meanwhile, featured as a moderating rather than dominating force. The panel converged on a pragmatic view: sustainability has not disappeared from leasing decisions, but its influence is increasingly differentiated. For large corporates, ESG criteria are structural and non-negotiable. For smaller tenants and residential renters, cost remains decisive.

Nöske observed that tenants ultimately benchmark the gross rent. Environmental features are welcomed, but only where they reduce operating costs or improve reliability. Wege and Schubert similarly noted that ESG can strengthen a letting proposition — but rarely salvages an uncompetitive one. The message was not that ESG is fading, but that it is being priced more realistically.

Taken together, the discussion painted a picture of a market learning discipline under pressure. Tenant markets are exposing informal habits and forcing clearer structures around leasing decisions. Asset management and property management are not drifting apart; they are being compelled to align more tightly.

Leasing in Germany is no longer a mechanical step between completion and cashflow. It has become a core component of asset risk management. In a tenant market, professionalisation is no longer a strategic ambition but a survival trait.