Why Are So Many Investors Avoiding Brokers Lately?

Question

I’ve noticed more investors saying they want to go “direct to lenders” instead of working with brokers. I totally get that no one wants extra fees or middlemen, but I’m curious about your experiences and thoughts on this.

For those who’ve gone direct, did it actually make things easier or cheaper for you? Or did you find that having a broker helped you get better terms or faster results? From what I’ve seen, brokers can often access multiple lenders at once and find creative ways to get a deal done that a single lender might not. But I also know some people have had bad experiences with brokers who didn’t communicate well or didn’t add much value.

I’m just interested to hear from both sides, investors, lenders, and brokers....... what makes you prefer one route over the other?

Christian Wamsley · Answer

I think this is a great question, Deborah — and one that comes up often.

The truth is, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Going direct can absolutely work when you already have a strong relationship with a lender, your deal fits neatly inside their box, and you’re confident in how to present it.

Where brokers tend to shine is when deals have nuance — maybe credit or experience isn’t perfect, maybe leverage needs to be higher, or the project has multiple moving parts. Instead of starting over with five or six lenders, a good broker can match the deal to the right funding structure and keep communication flowing between both sides.

From what I’ve seen working with investors, a solid broker often becomes a key team member — not just finding capital, but aligning the right funding with the investor’s broader goals. That alignment can mean better terms, fewer surprises, and faster closings when things get complex.

Of course, not all brokers operate that way. The bad experiences usually come from lack of transparency or poor communication, not the model itself. A good one should act more like a funding strategist — saving time, clarifying expectations, and sometimes even structuring deals that wouldn’t otherwise get done.

So for me, it’s less about “broker vs. direct” and more about who helps you close better, faster, and with less stress.

Clayton Silva · Answer

I have worked for both a brokerage and an IMB. I prefer the IMB model infinitely more. More control, better communication, more exceptions approved, better staffing, and comparable or better pricing on rates and loans. More options too (not true for all IMBs but at least where we are at, it is so much better). IMB is great too because we can still broker loans if we are unable to fund the specific deal in house.

Direct banks like WF, JPM, etc. tend to have best rates and pricing but extremely tight buy boxes so unless the client is a perfect fit, they just deny a lot of people and have very few options.

Clayton Silva · Answer

It really is the best.  Not only can I still broker to any other wholesale lender like a broker, but I have dozens, if not, hundreds of proprietary options that brokers do not have.  We can go directly to the hedge fund and even make our own loan programs and securitize them.

Deborah Wodell · Answer

Thanks for breaking that down. That makes a lot of sense having more flexibility and communication is huge, especially for investors who don’t fit the “perfect box.” I’ve noticed the same direct banks can offer great rates, but if your deal or profile isn’t exactly what they want, it’s almost impossible to get approved. The IMB model seems like a much better fit for creative or off-market deals where you need some leeway.

Why Are So Many Investors Avoiding Brokers Lately?

Most Popular Reply