What a developer actually needs from an introduction

Ask a developer what they want from an introducer and the first answer is usually 'more funders'. Ask what went wrong last time and the answer changes. Too many names. Too many decks sent to people who were never going to say yes. Weeks lost answering the same questions for capital that had already decided the scheme was not for them.

The problem was never the length of the list. It was that nobody had checked the names on it against the scheme. This article sets out what a useful introduction looks like from the developer’s side of the table — and what you can do to make one land.

Capital is several markets, not one

Private capital for property comes from different places, and each reads a scheme differently. A family office will often start with the people: who has delivered what, and whether last time's appraisal matched what actually happened. A joint-venture platform may have published criteria and move quickly when a scheme meets them. Specialist funders bring process and reporting with them, and expect the same in return. Private investors vary most of all — some want to be closely involved, others want to hear from you twice a year.

None of these is better than the others. Each is better for a particular kind of deal. The work of an introduction is matching the two before anyone's time is spent.

Match the stage, not just the sector

"Property" is too broad a label to match on. The capital that suits a site without planning is rarely the capital that suits a consented scheme ready to build, and neither is the capital that suits a let, stabilised asset. Risk changes at each stage, and so does the partner willing to carry it.

• Land and pre-planning — patient, risk-tolerant partners who are comfortable valuing an outcome that is not yet certain.
• Consented, pre-construction — joint-venture equity and development partners who can underwrite build and sales risk.
• In construction — partners who understand programme, contractor risk and cost inflation, and who can move if a gap opens.
• Completed or stabilised — investors looking for income and a clear hold or exit, often with lower return expectations.

An introduction that ignores the stage wastes a meeting. One that respects it usually shortens the conversation considerably.

What every partner will ask first

Whatever the source, the opening questions rarely change. Having the answers ready is the single biggest thing a developer can do to shorten the process:

• The appraisal — with comparable evidence for the values it assumes.
• The planning position — consented, in for consent, or pre-application, and the risk that sits with each.
• The build — who is building it, and how firmly the cost is fixed.
• The track record — what you have delivered, and how the outcomes compared with the forecasts.
• The ask — how much, for what, and when it is needed.

A scheme that answers these clearly is read differently from one that does not, whatever its quality underneath.

Make the scheme readable in an afternoon

Most partners decide whether to look further within the first few minutes. Good schemes are lost at this stage simply because they are hard to read. A one-page summary — the site, the plan, the numbers, the team and the ask — does more work than a forty-page deck nobody reaches the end of.

Behind it, show your sensitivities: what happens to the outcome if sales values soften or costs rise. Partners will run these numbers themselves; seeing that you already have tells them you understand where the risk sits. Set out the capital stack plainly, so it is obvious who is in, on what terms, and where new money would rank.

Why two or three introductions beat twenty

Sending a scheme widely feels like progress. In practice it often works against the developer: the same opportunity reaching the same small market from several directions makes it look harder to place than it is. Partners talk to each other, and a scheme that has been everywhere starts to carry a question mark.

A short list of partners who have confirmed their interest in principle — without your name, before any introduction — changes the first meeting. Both sides arrive knowing why they are there, and the conversation starts at the substance rather than at the brochure.

What a good first meeting looks like

A good first meeting is not a pitch. It is two parties testing whether they can work together. Expect questions about how you make decisions, how you report, and what happens when something goes wrong. Ask the same of them: how they behave when a programme slips, what they need from you during the build, and how quickly they can move.

If the fit is right, the next step is usually a closer look at the numbers. If it is not, a clear no at this point is a good outcome — it costs both sides an hour, not a month.

Where an introducer should stop

A good introduction ends with two parties talking directly. Negotiating terms, structuring the deal and advising on it belong to the developer, the partner and their professional advisers. Knowing where that line sits is part of what makes an introduction worth having: an introducer with no stake in the terms has every reason to get the match right.