Tenant-rep brokers should compare leases on a shared occupancy-cost timeline, discount that cash-flow stream to NPV at an explicit rate, and keep a shareable client summary next to the sensitivity cases. Face rent alone hides timing.
How do tenant-rep brokers use NPV?
Tenant-rep brokers use NPV to show clients when cash moves. Inputs are required: rent, CAM, TI, free rent, escalations, term, and a stated discount rate. What decisions follow is which option is cheaper on a present-value basis and whether that ranking survives nearby rates.
How does tenant representation use a client summary?
Tenant representation uses a client summary to keep the comparison shareable. The summary should sit next to the cash-flow and NPV figures, labeled illustrative until live terms are loaded, so the client sees the same ranking the broker used.
Who this is for
This page is for tenant-rep brokers, independent CRE brokers, and boutique advisory teams who currently rebuild lease workbooks deal by deal.
Broker workflow and lease-comparison friction
The current method fails when face rent is the headline, CAM lives in a separate tab, and incentives live in separate emails. A hidden cell changes the ranking. The client gets a story instead of a cash-flow argument.
Spreadsheet workflow problems
Spreadsheets are fine calculators. They are poor shared methods. Each deal rebuilds a workbook. Discount-rate cases disappear. The proposed workflow keeps cash-flow compare, NPV + sensitivity, and a shareable client summary together.
Proposed tenant-rep workspace
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE — Lease A versus Lease B, not customer data
Input
Lease A
Lease B
Start rent
$42,000
$39,000
CAM
$8,400
$9,100
TI credit, year 1
$18,000
$12,000
Free rent
2 months
1 month
Escalation
3% / year
5% / year
NPV @ 8%
$186,400
$191,220
Illustrative sample — not customer data.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE — cash-flow periods, not customer data
Period
Lease A net occupancy
Discounted @ 8%
Year 1
$32,400after free rent and TI
$30,000
Year 2
$51,912
$44,500
Year 3
$53,469
$42,430
Year 4
$55,073
$40,470
Year 5
$56,726
$38,600
Scenario modeling and client presentations
Change the discount rate, keep the lease terms in view, and share an illustrative summary. Sample figures are not customer results. The value is that sensitivity stays visible.
$290 per year or $149 per deal. Payment is not collected. Willingness to pay is not proven.
Positioning, problem, product visualization, benefits, use cases, and trust or disclosure sit on this persona page because the conversion path is for tenant-rep brokers, not a generic audience.
Why it matters
Deeper explanation of the tenant-rep broker workflow belongs in the comparison because face rent alone hides timing. How it works in practice: put the cash event on the occupancy-cost timeline, then discount. This is the next logical step after reading a definition.
Related concepts
Related concepts include occupancy cost, NPV, tenant improvement allowance, free rent, CAM, and rent escalations. Contextual CTA: request a validation pilot only after the numbers are explicit.
Common mistakes are listed on this page. Authority sources sit below. Internal links connect the hub, the comparison method, and early access.
Example
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE. The Lease A versus Lease B figures used across this site are educational samples, not customer results. They exist so the tenant-rep broker workflow can be seen beside rent, CAM, TI, free rent, and escalations instead of as an isolated slogan.
How it works
Capture the term. Place it on the cash-flow stream. Discount. Compare. Keep the assumption visible. That sequence is the product visualization of the proposed workflow, not a production screenshot.
A fuller reading of the tenant-rep broker workflow
Lease-comparison friction is the rebuilt workbook. Spreadsheet workflow problems are hidden cells and separate tabs. Scenario modeling and client presentations need a shareable summary. Common questions belong on the authority spokes. Objections include finished-product expectations and treating lower NPV as automatic advice. Who it is not for remains landlords and property managers. The pilot CTA is Request Pilot Access.
Tenant-rep brokers still have to verify the lease. This page does not replace counsel. It does not claim FASB, NAIOP, or BOMA endorsement. It uses those organizations as independent professional context so a citation-ready answer can name the entity, state the fact, and show the limitation.
If two options differ only by a brochure number, the comparison is unfinished. If they differ by when cash moves, the comparison is an NPV problem. If they differ by who pays operating expenses, the comparison is a structure problem. the tenant-rep broker workflow is one of those differences. The proposed focused workflow keeps those differences on one shareable client summary.
Pricing remains a hypothesis: $290 per year or $149 per deal. Payment is not collected. Willingness to pay is not proven. A serious owner can publish this page because the example is labeled, the sources are named, and the conversion path is honest.
who is this not for: this workflow is not for landlords running a portfolio, not for property managers administering occupied buildings, and not for teams that need a full brokerage suite. It is also not for anyone who wants a finished product with checkout today.
Objections worth answering now
This is not a finished product. Payment is not collected on this site. A lower NPV is not automatically the better occupancy choice. Sample figures are illustrative and are not customer results.
