Alteration to the business model of DAI Imobiliária

On April 20, 2021, DAI Imobiliária made the transition from the shared AMI license model to the model of legally and financially independent agencies / teams in which each agency / team now operates with its own AMI license.

The advantages of this model of legally and financially independent agencies / teams compared to the shared AMI are more or less obvious, unless we see.

ami

With the shared AMI model, only one actor (consultant or team) could jeopardize the continuity of the business of all other actors, just for that reason and as an example of recent events, the failure to comply with the indications for not visits to buildings as happened in the very recent past (state of emergency - pandemic). The simple act of not complying with the instructions for not having a view resulted in heavy fines for the offending consultant as well as for the entity holding the AMI license. This unintended act by a single actor could be enough to place the AMI holder in a legally disadvantageous and financially unaffordable position to the point of making the effort that other non-offending actors put into the participation and development of their business unfeasible.

In the new model of legally and financially independent agencies / teams with their own AMI license, the risk of an actor calling into question everyone's work is completely defeated. Legal and financial risks are now limited to each agency / team, so the scope of each person's actions is much more contained and predictable.

Another advantage of the new model of legally and financially independent agencies / teams with its own AMI is in its relations with other entities, namely Banking, Real Estate Investment Funds, Credit Intermediaries, among others. The relationship risk with these entities is also limited to the holder of each AMI license. To illustrate the risk that was present in the use of a shared AMI in maintaining good relations with external entities, I give the following examples. Let us imagine that in the course of the relationship with an investment fund, a consultant is unable to maintain a good relationship with the property manager and that conversely the property manager of that same investment fund reflects this poor relationship with an unwillingness to respond to requests coming from of that same AMI license. Or even imagine that in the relationship with a Credit Intermediary, it was not possible to maintain a good relationship with one or more consultants and these consultants end up refusing to continue working with the Credit Intermediary who had to be in charge of the processes of the entire the network in order to be economically viable to the latter.

With the new model, all of these relationships with external entities are conducted independently, so the risk of one-to-all actions impacting is immediately defeated.

There are certainly more arguments that could be explored and that led us to this change of model, but these two mentioned above and that meet the same problem that translates into the actions of one impacting the other in the shared AMI model, were sufficient reason for realizing the need for change. In the new model of legally and financially independent agencies / teams with their own AMI license, the interdependence of consequences is reduced to the point that the isolated actions of each actor do not have a direct impact on the other actors.