Companies that control their operating real estate are frequently approached by sale leaseback investors offering an attractive headline price, expedited execution, and seemingly flexible lease terms. These proposals—often unsolicited and delivered via a call or a short-form letter of intent (LOI)—are positioned as convenient, low-friction solutions to unlock real estate value.
In practice, however, accepting or even substantively entertaining a direct offer is rarely in the best interest of the owner-operator. A sale leaseback is not merely a real estate transaction; it is a long-term financing decision that can reshape a company’s balance sheet, cost structure, and operating flexibility for decades. The optimal outcome—maximizing proceeds while securing business-protective lease terms—is most consistently achieved through a structured, competitive, advisor-led process rather than a one-off negotiation with a single buyer.
Most importantly, a marketed process almost always leads to better economics (i.e. higher proceeds and/or lower cap rate). However there are many other benefits that a competitive process brings for sellers.
In our primer, we discuss why sale leaseback investors love proprietary deals, why an LOI isn’t the proverbial “finish line” and why competition optimizes value not just on cap rate and proceeds, but also lease terms which can materially impact the company.
To access our primer on “Direct Offers vs. Marketed SLBs: How Competition Changes Everything” please provide the following information and it will be provided via email.