Exclusive Property Management – A Better Way to Look After Your Investment?

[RENTit PM]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to start a conversation around something I think is missing in a lot of property management discussions — the idea of exclusive property management.

Most PMs manage 100–150 properties at a time (sometimes more), which inevitably leads to slower responses, limited oversight, and often a reactive approach to problems. From a landlord's point of view, that can be frustrating — and from a tenant's perspective, it can feel impersonal and unresponsive.

So what happens when you flip the model?

What if a property manager only took on a small number of properties — say, no more than 50 — and treated each one like it mattered?

Would landlords get better returns through more attention to detail, better tenants, and less downtime? Would tenants stay longer because they feel genuinely looked after?

Keen to hear others’ thoughts on this.

[Sanya]

As a landlord I've worked with many different property managers - including New Zealand's largest one.

My observation is this. The number of properties each PM manages is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is - the PM's scope of works, how productive they are and importantly, what level of automation the PM company has.

A PM can offer excellent service whilst managing a lot of properties if their back end systems are highly automated and/or the scope of works is limited in function - for example a different person / specialist manages maintenance and repairs work.

[RENTit PM]

Thanks — really good points, and I totally see where you’re coming from. I agree that systems and automation can improve efficiency, especially with tasks like rent collection, reminders, and maintenance logging.

But I think that’s also part of the problem. The more automated the system, the easier it is for landlords and tenants to become just another line item in a dashboard. Automation can speed things up, but it also creates distance — and when something goes wrong, there’s often no one personally invested in solving it properly.

What I’ve noticed is that automation has also encouraged some PM companies to load up their managers with more and more properties, under the assumption that tech will take care of the gaps. But when a complex issue arises — like a drawn-out repair, a tenant dispute, or something that falls outside the system — it becomes clear very quickly that a checklist or software can’t replace hands-on problem solving.

Just my take, but I’ve seen this play out a few times now. Curious if others have experienced similar?

[donna]

Over the years I have been a part of a young property management co (as a LL) and seen them professionalise and grow.

They also acquired a PM co in a nearby area. What I can say - what works for them is - they do use the pm systems like Tapi, and it's a game-changer for managing maintenance work. They also use an Aussie co - console.com.au for other comms like inspections and statements.

At the same time, their PMs are easy to get hold of - they are very responsive. I think it is a balance between technology, training and management and customer service.

All businesses need a strong leader with the right values and commitment.

They have the perfect balance IMHO - using proven systems to improve their service.

[Sanya]

At the same time, their PMs are easy to get hold of - they are very responsive. I think it is a balance between technology, training and management and customer service.

I've found the same.

The use of advanced PM tech including tenant concierge, 3D property viewing for inspections etc. empowers tenants and frees up PM's to deal responsively to issues.

[RENTit PM]

Thanks again for the responses — they’ve been really helpful.

I’ve got a question for the group:
Do you think there’s a limit to how many properties a single property manager can manage effectively?

Some say with the right systems, a PM can handle 150+ properties. Others believe anything over 60–70 starts to impact service quality — slower responses, less proactive communication, missed details, etc.

And as landlords — is the number of properties a PM manages something you actually ask about or care about when choosing a property manager?
Would love to hear your thoughts or personal experience — especially if you’ve worked with both large-scale and boutique providers.

I'm genuinely curious as I build my own PM model around staying exclusive and keeping numbers low to maintain high service levels.

Matt

https://www.rentitpm.nz

[donna]

Doesn't matter to me - I have said what matters to me.

A question for you, Matt - why would LLs care about the number of clients a PM business?

BTW - I visited your website - I found the black background makes it hard to read.

[RENTit PM]

Totally fair — appreciate you sharing what matters to you.

As for your question: I think landlords care about the number of clients a PM has when it starts to affect service. Not every landlord will feel it, but I’ve spoken with quite a few who’ve had issues with slow communication, missed details, or a reactive approach. I feel that it often ties back to overloaded portfolios.

For me, it’s about how much time and energy a PM can realistically give to each property. When the workload gets too high (even with automation), things start to slip. That’s why I believe in keeping the portfolio small and the service personal. At some point, quantity starts to compromise quality — and that’s not a trade-off I want to make.

And thanks for the note on the website — always great to get constructive feedback.