Lack of experience and consistency in assessing the rental market.

When the leasing authority was signed, nearly two months before the property was advertised, I was advised by the rental team that the expected market rent was approximately $775 per week. Then, just one week before the property was due to be advertised, I was advised that the market was showing renewed interest and that $800 per week was achievable. Based on that advice, the property was subsequently advertised at $800 per week. Approximately a week and a half later, I was advised that the market was no longer supporting $800 per week and that the rent should be reduced to $775 per week. A further week later, the recommendation was to reduce it again to $750 per week. Another week later, it was reduced to $725 per week, at which point the property was finally rented. I am not necessarily suggesting that the property was ultimately under-valued at $725 per week. My concern is the significant variation in the rental advice provided over such a short period. Moving from an assessment of $775 per week, to confidence that $800 per week was achievable, and then ultimately reducing the rent to $725 per week within approximately one month suggests a lack of accurate knowledge or confidence in the rental market. In the current economic environment, where rental prices have generally been increasing, I would have expected a more accurate assessment of the market from the outset. If the market was realistically $725 per week, we could have commenced the campaign at that price, potentially attracting a stronger pool of applicants and securing a suitable tenant sooner. Ultimately, my concern is less about the final rental amount and more about the inconsistent pricing strategy and the quality of the market advice provided throughout the leasing process.