Some of the best files we have ever worked arrived through another brokerage that already sat close to the principal. That is welcome. It is also where relationships die fastest when the rules are soft.
A named introduction is how a file that can be stood behind usually moves. We have said that. This note is about the next question: how two introducing firms share that file without turning either relationship into inventory.
The claim is short. Working with another brokerage only works when both offices protect the same name the same way — capacity said, fee clear, one channel for the life of the file. Anything else wastes two relationships at once.
What “working with” is not
It is not an open chain with a nicer subject line. It is not “I’ll copy you in case it fits.” It is not a second firm added after the name has already been shopped, so that someone can claim they brought a counterpart.
It is also not a layer piled onto a chain that already has one. We introduce. We do not add a layer for its own sake. If the other brokerage already holds the principal and can close without us, the honest sentence is that we are not needed. If they want us in because we hold the other side — or because we can verify, stay through delivery, and keep the conversation inside the conversation — then say that. Capacity first. Role second. Names third.
A Telegram-shaped note that asks us to “bring buyers” while keeping the seller unnamed is not a co-brokerage. It is a fishing trip.
Three things that must be said before a name moves
The first is capacity. Principal, family company, or introducing firm — written, on line one, from both sides. If either side cannot say in what capacity it acts, there is nothing to introduce. A rumour of a relationship is not a relationship.
The second is the fee. Associates and introducing brokers work with us under a clear fee arrangement before any introduction is made. That is not bureaucracy. It is how a name is kept from becoming a circulating asset. A handshake that will “be sorted later” is how later becomes a fight, and fights are how names get burned in public.
The third is the channel. For the life of a live file, the same name is not placed into parallel circulation. Exclusivity that lasts forever is a promise we do not make. Exclusivity while we are working the introduction is ordinary hygiene. We have ended conversations for that reason — not because the other desk was unserious, but because the name was already moving somewhere else while we were still on it.
If those three cannot be said, the courteous answer is no. A short no protects both offices. A wide yes does not.
How a shared file actually stays clean
Once interest is genuine, put the understanding in writing. Who introduces whom. Who speaks to the principal. Who may forward what. Who stays after the name has moved — through documents, inspection, and delivery.
Proof of product still precedes pressure. The co-brokerage does not replace the cargo. It only decides who is allowed to see it, and under whose consent. Transaction-specific documents are prepared for the file in front of us. A procedure copied from an unrelated deal and offered as the pack for this introduction is not proof. It is theatre, and theatre is how a serious principal learns that two brokerages were improvising with their name.
Confidentiality is a rule of the house for both offices, or it is not a rule at all. Mandates, names, and proof remain inside the conversation. If a number appears in a third inbox while the first is still open, the file is no longer shared. It is spent.
When a second lift follows, it ought to be quieter than the first. That quiet is the proof that neither office shopped the relationship to make the first one look busy.
What wastes the relationship
Shopping a name “to see who bites” while another office is still working it.
Asking for exclusivity in the email and circulating the same principal in the next hour.
Leaving the fee for after the introduction, then discovering the other side had a different number in mind.
Forwarding a principal into an open chain and calling it a co-brokerage because two logos appeared in the CC.
Using another brokerage as cover for a file that cannot be stood behind — so that if it fails, the damage lands on someone else’s letterhead.
We would rather share a closed transaction with a serious counterpart than preside over a conversation that was never real. We have declined co-broker files for each of the reasons above. The refusal is not a mood. It is how the relationships that remain stay worth having.
How to begin
Please reach out to us with potential opportunities and we shall advise on a case-by-case basis. Write to business@thecristianigroup.com.
If you already hold a relationship you would like us to work with care, say so in the first line. Say in what capacity you act. Say that a fee understanding can be put in writing before any name travels. We will follow your channel.
Why a named introduction is not an open chain sits in Named Introduction Versus Open Chain. What we will not do sits in What TCG Will Not Do. The fuller account of how a file moves sits on How We Work.
Replies are handled by the firm, in our own name.
