Despite (or maybe because of) the macro noise, every real estate investor I speak to is chasing the same type and structure of deal. Some secure income, a clean title, a tenant covenant already proven, a degree of asset management opportunity. It's an entirely understandable instinct, and it's exactly why pricing on that type of asset has been pushed to levels that no longer reflect the risk being taken on. When the whole market is underwriting the same profile, you're not buying a safe deal anymore. You're buying an expensive one.

We have been in the running for numerous assets across the UK over the last 12 months, only to be outbid on something that already looked pretty punchy on price. With competition pushing pricing levels higher, the deal becomes unfavourable both to us (as we invest our own capital) and to our investment partners and lender network. Despite our strong appetite and conviction to invest, we simply will not do it at any cost.

As such, we’ve had to rethink our approach, which is easier to do when you are sector-agnostic as we, and our partners, are. We are starting to see value more often than not sitting in the deals that other investors have either not engaged with or already passed over: the asset with a planning constraint that needs working through, the building that's under-let because nobody's bothered to reposition it, the operational business that's been run competently but not well. These are the deals that take longer to underwrite and longer to explain in an investment committee paper. That's precisely why they're priced more attractively than the assets everyone else is bidding for.

If unlocking a deal's value requires genuine planning expertise, hands-on asset management, or real operational capability, the number of buyers who can actually execute shrinks fast. Less competition on the way in means you're not paying someone else's premium for the upside. The value was only partly in the asset as it stood on day one: it's also in the gap between what it is and what it can become, and that gap only belongs to you if your organisation has the skills to close it.

None of this works without the underlying expertise to back it up. Value creation isn't something you retrofit after completion: it has to be underwritten from day one, with in-house debt, transaction, and asset management capability sitting behind every deal you structure. Get that wrong, and complexity stops being your edge and becomes your downfall. As such, it does take a unique set up to be able to unlock these deals. Aprirose has an in-house asset management team which can review an asset before we’ve acquired it to determine what we can or cannot achieve for example. We also have an in-house debt/capital team who have access to a number of lenders upfront that we can take a temperature check on at an early point in a potential deal.

That's why, in this market, I'd encourage investors to get comfortable getting messy. Underwrite a change of use before it's secured rather than waiting for someone else to do it first. Model the cost and timeline of a refurbishment properly instead of treating it as a reason to walk away. Understand what a genuine operational upgrade looks like in a sector like hospitality or living, where the running of the asset is as important as the bricks and mortar. And build, or buy in, the planning literacy to know what's realistically achievable on a constrained site.

The market has effectively split in two: investors competing for the same narrow pool of de-risked stock, and investors willing to put the work in to find, understand, and unlock complexity. The first group is competing on price. We'd rather compete on skill. In a market this tight, it's the more durable advantage.