Why International Footprints Don’t Sell NYC Investment Properties

‍

Read the Full Article on Commercial Observer - Click Here

‍

For decades, global brokerage firms have marketed their international office networks as a competitive advantage when selling New York City investment properties. The pitch is familiar: global reach brings global capital.

But according to Robert Knakal — who has brokered the sale of 2,391 NYC properties over 42 years — the data tells a very different story. In practice, international footprints rarely drive actual buyers, particularly in the highly specialized world of development site sales.

The Data Behind the Global Brokerage Myth

• 538 Transactions at Global Firms — Zero Foreign Office Buyers
  During 14 years at CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, and JLL, Knakal brokered 538 properties. Not one buyer was introduced by a foreign office colleague.
• 9,146 Offers Submitted — Zero from International Offices
  Across those transactions, 9,146 offers were received. None originated from brokers in overseas offices within those firms.
• Foreign Capital Exists — But It Operates Locally
  During 26 years at Massey Knakal Realty Services, properties were sold to investors from 62 countries — despite having no international offices. Foreign buyers relied on local attorneys, accountants, operators, and NYC-based intermediaries.
• Development Sites Require Hyper-Local Expertise
  Zoning complexity, entitlement strategy, construction costs, union dynamics, and political considerations make development land acquisitions operational commitments — not passive global capital allocations.
• Case Study: 421 Kent Avenue
  In one of the rare examples of a direct foreign purchaser (the Chinese government), the buyer was represented by a local Flushing-based broker — not by a major global brokerage platform.
• Targeted Outreach Beats “Global Distribution”
  Active development buyers in NYC are already embedded in the local ecosystem. Successful brokerage depends on credibility, specialization, and competitive bidding strategy — not mass email blasts to foreign offices.

Why Development Site Brokerage Is Fundamentally Local

New York City is one of the most complex real estate markets in the world. Sophisticated foreign capital often participates behind the scenes, but acquisitions and execution are almost always led by experienced local developers.

Even trophy development sites — including the 2025 sale of the Spitzer site at Fifth Avenue and 62nd Street — ultimately transact with local developers deeply rooted in the market.

The conclusion is clear:
Global branding may sound powerful, but local specialization closes deals.

The Real Competitive Advantage in NYC Investment Sales

According to Knakal, true advantage in New York City investment brokerage comes from:

• Local specialization
• Exclusive seller representation
• Deep proprietary market intelligence
• Credibility with active development buyers
• Proven ability to create competitive bidding environments

A firm may have offices in 100 countries. But if none of those offices produce a single buyer — or a single offer out of 9,146 — scale becomes narrative, not substance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do foreign investors buy NYC real estate?

Yes. Foreign capital actively invests in New York City, but transactions are typically executed through local operators, attorneys, and acquisition teams — not through foreign brokerage offices.

Why doesn’t global office distribution produce buyers?

Serious investors are already embedded in NYC’s local ecosystem. They track opportunities directly and maintain relationships with credible local listing brokers.

Is this especially true for development sites?

Yes. Development land requires zoning expertise, entitlement strategy, and local execution knowledge — making hyper-local experience essential.

What matters most in NYC investment sales brokerage?

Specialization, proprietary data, local credibility, and structured competitive processes consistently outperform broad global branding.

What does “Zero out of 9,146” represent?

It reflects the number of offers submitted across 538 transactions during Knakal’s time at global firms — none of which originated from international offices.

‍