Why do some companies outsource all their management while others hire in-house?
[deleted]
[{"id": "g798e6d", "text": "Same reason anyone outsourced anything. Quality control, cheaper, time investment etc.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "g798gg9", "text": "Some companies are more hands-on while others see themselves more as a bank, i.e. hands-off. There's both pros and cons to both subcontracting everything out vs keeping in-house. A lot depends on the resources that you and your team have, including (mostly) time and if you like getting your hands dirty or are more hands-off.\n\nIts the same reason why some brands manufacture in-house (Ford) but others outsource all their manufacturing (Apple). Just different strategies; one isn't better than the other and there's no right or wrong. It comes down to your personal resources, interests and goals.\n\nI personally like being involved deeply, but that's me. It's not for everyone.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "g79eny4", "text": "It's the age old question is if you view property managers as expensive or cheap.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "g79w4ln", "text": "financial owners vs operators are very different groups - it's more about how they feel that they are adding value to an asset than anything. That said, some operators will hire the best-of-breed property manager if they lack market or product expertise for a given asset, or if a co-investor prefers it. Developers may manage the property until lease-up and then turn it over to a third party.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]