Independent · Fee-Only · No Commission
Cross-border acquisition underwriting and market analysis across 14 markets for UHNWI clients, family offices, and qualified intermediaries. No referral arrangements. No commission. Zero conflict of interest.
Start a conversationThe Practice
Cross-Border Real Estate Advisory is an independent practice. I do not sell property, accept referral fees, or hold commission arrangements with any developer, agent, or financial institution in any covered market. My fee is the only fee I earn.
That structure matters because it removes every conflict that ordinarily sits between an adviser and the quality of the work. What I produce is analysis built to withstand institutional scrutiny across macro positioning, jurisdiction risk, and asset-level underwriting, with no referral arrangement sitting behind any of it.
Every engagement is built on a live read of the macro environment across all covered markets. That means when you are looking at a specific asset in a specific market, the analysis already knows what the credit cycle is doing, where rates are heading, what capital flow patterns are showing, and what the regulatory environment has changed since the last time anyone looked. The intelligence is current. The position is mine. The output is a defensible analytical verdict, not a summary of what other people have published.
I work directly with UHNWI clients, family offices, and qualified intermediaries who need an independent read to support decisions where the capital at risk is real and the margin for error is not. The standard of the analysis does not change with the route. The independence is non-negotiable in every case.
Fees are fixed to the scope of the engagement, not the size of the asset. Whether the acquisition is USD $500,000 or USD $50,000,000, the fee for the same analytical work is the same. There is no percentage of deal value, no success fee, and no incentive for me to reach any conclusion other than the one the analysis supports.
Andrew May
A decade with British Army Infantry Reconnaissance and Intelligence. Two decades more operating across international real estate markets. A military intelligence methodology, a time-tested top-down macro framework and zero conflicts of interest.
My background is in intelligence analysis. A decade with the British Army Infantry Reconnaissance and Intelligence, working in environments where the information was incomplete, the networks were fragmented, and the cost of a wrong call was not a bad quarter. You build a methodology under those conditions or you do not last long. The discipline is the same one I apply here: collect systematically, assess without agenda, state the conclusion clearly including when the conclusion is that the position should not be taken.
Most analytical failures in real estate are not data failures. The data exists. They are discipline failures. Someone skipped a step in the logic because the deal looked good. Someone carried a regulatory read forward from a prior jurisdiction because the market felt familiar. Someone hedged the verdict because they were not certain and did not say so. The intelligence methodology does not permit any of those. A gap is named, not inferred around. A conclusion is stated, not suggested. That is the only standard that transfers from one environment to the other.
The practice is deliberately small. A limited client base means every client gets my full attention. I am accountable for the analytical integrity of every position I put my name to, for clients who are relying on it when capital is actually moving.
Based in Kuala Lumpur. Working across time zones by design. Over two decades I have been physically on the ground across these markets, conducting due diligence, building the networks that matter, and in a number of them deploying capital directly. In others, the read was clear enough to walk away before capital moved. I have walked away from engagements, and will continue to, when the macro made the asset-level analysis redundant. That call is more valuable than any deal I have done.
Analyst Coverage
Fourteen markets across four continents with active analytical coverage. Every market follows the same top-down sequence: macro and sovereign conditions first, then currency and capital flow, then the regulatory environment, and finally asset-level positioning. The sequence matters. Getting the order wrong is how analysts end up underwriting a deal that looks good at the asset level and falls apart at the macro. Market complexity and data quality vary and are confirmed at the pre-engagement call.
The Standard I Hold
The analysis that gets people into trouble isn't usually wrong in the obvious way. It's incomplete. A yield that looks right because nobody checked the rate environment. A regulatory reading carried forward from a prior engagement because the jurisdiction felt familiar. A verdict that hedges because the analyst wasn't certain and didn't say so. The errors that matter aren't arithmetic. They're epistemic. Someone didn't know what they didn't know, and they didn't flag it.
That's the problem I built this practice to solve. Not for myself, The work has given me enough time to learn what I don't know about a market before I open my mouth about it. For clients who are making decisions with real capital in markets they can't monitor themselves, and who have no way of knowing whether the analysis in front of them was built rigorously or assembled quickly.
Every piece of work that leaves this practice has been through the same process.
Before the analysis begins
Before I touch a single market figure, I run a capability audit. The question isn't whether the data exists. It's whether I can interpret it correctly, for this market, at this analytical date, at the precision the engagement requires. If the answer to any part of that is no, I say so in writing and the build pauses until it's resolved. A document with a named gap is recoverable. A document with a confident error that nobody caught is not.
From there, a data verification sequence runs: the central bank rate confirmed against the institution's own release, the acquisition cost stack verified against the primary regulatory source for that jurisdiction, the yield assumptions traced to named institutional data providers, the market's position in my analytical framework established and justified before a sentence of the analysis is drafted.
None of this is optional. None of it gets shortened because the deadline is close.
During the build
The analysis follows a fixed sequence: macro to jurisdiction to asset class to granular. That sequence exists because the conclusions at each level constrain what's possible at the next. A cap rate assumption that ignores the rate environment isn't wrong because it disagrees with the numbers. It's wrong because it skipped a step in the logic. I've been doing this long enough to know that the skipped step is usually the one that matters.
Before the document exists
After the analysis is drafted, five checks run before the PDF builds.
Every assumption, stated and implicit, is stress-tested. If the investment thesis only works under the base case, that's what the verdict says.
Every factual claim is traced back to its primary source. Not the institutional provider that cited the government release. The government release itself. The chain of custody matters.
Every key figure is read in context. A yield of 5.5% in a 3.5% rate environment is a different proposition from 5.5% in a 5.5% environment. The spread is what matters.
The document is read for voice. The analysis either has a view or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it goes back.
The reasoning chain is verified step by step. The conclusion has to follow from the evidence as stated.
The scoring standard
Every deliverable is scored against a ten-criterion framework before it's filed, factual accuracy, arithmetic integrity, date-window discipline, judgement separation, analytical framework validity, source quality, actionability, internal consistency, production quality, and independence signalling. The weights differ by product. An acquisition underwriting carries more weight on actionability than a market analysis, because the conclusion is more specific and a client is relying on it more directly.
The scores aren't reported to clients. They're my internal quality record, evidence that the system ran, the document was checked, and the standard was met before anything left the desk.
Why this matters
Independence is easy to claim. Every practice that takes no commission says it takes no commission. The structural question is whether the analysis itself is built to be honest, whether the process would surface a conclusion the client doesn't want to hear, and whether it would say so directly rather than burying it in a qualification.
I've walked away from markets. I've told clients that the asset they wanted to buy didn't work at the price they wanted to pay. I've issued verdicts that closed doors rather than opened them, because that was what the evidence supported and anything else would have been a disservice.
The verification sequence and the scoring framework exist for one reason: to make that discipline systematic rather than personal. The verdict follows from the evidence. If the evidence doesn't support deployment, the verdict says so.
That's what you're engaging when you work with this practice.
Advisory Packages
Five engagement types, each designed for a different decision context and level of analytical depth. Every engagement starts with the macro read. Not the asset, not the market. The macro. If the macro does not support deployment, nothing else matters. From there it works backwards from exit: what does getting out look like, and whether the numbers still hold when you get there.
Which engagement is right for you?
You have a question about a market or a deal and you want a structured, prepared session before committing to anything further. That is the right place to start.
Advisory Call · Start Here
You have a specific asset in front of you. You need an independent read on whether it is worth taking further before you spend any more time or money on it.
Package 01 · Deal Risk Memo
Capital might actually move on this. You need the full picture: income, capital structure, scenario modelling. Before it does. The Advisory Call got you here. Now you need the work.
Package 02 · Deal Risk and Market Analysis
You are at or near terms. This needs to hold up in front of your own investment committee, not just inform a conversation. That is a different standard and this is the engagement built for it.
Package 03 · Full Acquisition Underwriting
The situation does not fit a standard package. Multiple markets, a counterparty question, a brief that needs to be built around the specific decision rather than a template. Start with the scoping call.
Mandate · Bespoke
Start Here
Advisory Call
A structured, prepared session on any cross-border real estate question, deal, or decision. I review the asset or question before the call, so the session opens informed rather than exploratory. Delivered: pre-call deal scan, 60-minute prepared session, written post-call summary within 24 hours with findings, risk flags, and next-step guidance. Independent verdict with named risks. This is a diagnostic, not a sales pitch. If the numbers do not work or the market does not support the thesis, I will say so directly.
USD $750 first hour · USD $650 per hour thereafter · Book an Advisory Call
Before Work Begins
Once you have identified the right engagement type, a 30-minute pre-engagement call confirms the asset, the market, and the scope before any invoice is issued. An NDA and engagement terms follow. Work starts when both are countersigned and payment clears. Nothing moves before that point.
Confirm scope before committing · Book a pre-engagement call
Every Engagement. Without Exception.
Every engagement starts with a macro context section written at the time of the work, reflecting conditions as they actually stand. The macro layer is not scene-setting. It either supports the deployment thesis or it does not. I have walked away from engagements because the macro read made the asset-level analysis redundant. The framework does not bend to fit the conclusion the client arrived with.
Package 01
Deal Risk Memo
A focused risk assessment of a single asset in a single market. The right starting point when you need an independent read on whether a specific transaction is worth taking further, without commissioning a full market analysis.
What it does not include: a full income waterfall to NOI, scenario modelling, capital structure analysis, or comparable transaction data. Those are in Package 02.
From USD $5,000 · Delivery: 5 business days · 30-minute post-delivery debrief · Final fee confirmed in writing by email after scoping, subject to market complexity, data accessibility, data timeliness and language
Package 02
Deal Risk and Market Analysis
Everything in the Deal Risk Memo, built out with deeper macro analysis, a full income waterfall, weighted risk matrix, market dynamics, scenario modelling across buyer profiles, capital structure analysis, and a dedicated exit and liquidity section.
From USD $10,000 · Delivery: 10 business days · 60-minute post-delivery debrief · Final fee confirmed in writing by email after scoping, subject to market complexity, data accessibility, data timeliness and language
Package 03
Full Acquisition Underwriting
The most complete analysis available. Everything in the Deal Risk and Market Analysis, substantially extended, and with a set of pre-commitment conditions and monitoring triggers that take it from analysis to an actionable decision framework.
From USD $20,000 · Delivery: 15 business days · 90-minute post-delivery debrief · 30 days post-delivery support. Material changes to market, regulatory, or macro conditions within 30 days are updated at no additional charge · Final fee confirmed in writing by email after scoping, subject to market complexity, data accessibility, data timeliness and language
Bespoke
Mandate
For situations where no packaged product fits the decision. Multi-market analysis, counterparty and operator due diligence alongside market intelligence, or time-critical deployments where the scope needs to be built around the specific question. Every Mandate begins with a scoping conversation. Deliverables, timeline, and fixed fee are documented in writing and agreed before any work starts. No open-ended billing. No scope creep without a new agreement.
From USD $25,000 · Fixed fee agreed in writing by email after scoping call
The Work
The documents below are live examples of the analytical work. Three are Deal Risk and Market Analysis engagements, the same framework applied to Singapore, Portugal, and Spain. Different regulatory environments, different income structures, different verdicts. The three Deal Risk Memos cover Japan, Malaysia, and the UAE, each a Package 01 engagement, each with a distinct verdict. The sixth is a six-market comparative brief.
None of these reach a comfortable conclusion to please a client. Singapore CCR residential does not work for most non-FTA foreign buyers at current pricing. The document says so plainly. Spain non-EU buyers are told to hold on resale until the ITP surcharge is resolved. The UAE memo is a DO NOT DEPLOY verdict issued in a market where almost every other voice is bullish. That is what independent analysis looks like when there is no commission at the end of it.
Deal Risk Memo · Package 01
Japan
If you are being pitched Osaka residential and want to know whether the BOJ thesis holds before you get on a plane.
Osaka central ward residential assessed at Stage 2 of the Causal Chain. Early business expansion, capital beginning to arrive, the BOJ normalisation cycle underway and the foreign buyer window open but narrowing. The verdict is conditional and time-sensitive: the entry window exists, the yield and demographic base hold, and yen appreciation compounds on top. The document names the counterpart requirement for what it actually is. Not a transaction formality. The only insulation against a market that was not built with external capital in mind.
Deal Risk Memo · Package 01
Malaysia
If KL is in the frame and you want to know which submarket the thesis actually applies to, and which ones it does not.
Malaysia at Stages 3 to 4 on the Causal Chain, anchored by over USD 10 billion of hyperscaler infrastructure committed by Microsoft, Google, and AWS. The verdict is conditional and submarket-specific: the macro and structural case is intact, but broad KL exposure is not the trade. The document identifies the data centre corridors and the Johor RTS Link thesis as the signal, maps the 8% stamp duty impact on returns, and names the RPGT permanent floor for foreign sellers as the single most underestimated exit cost in cross-border Malaysian investment.
Deal Risk and Market Analysis · Package 02
Portugal
If you are looking at Portugal and need to understand what the AL licensing regime actually means for the income model before you commit.
Lisbon and Algarve residential with a full AL licensing analysis. Decree-Law 76/2024 created a two-tier market: properties with existing transferable licences in Lisbon contention zones are structural monopoly assets that cannot be replicated at any price. The document maps which parishes are frozen, what the AL income waterfall produces after operating costs, and where the walk-away trigger sits on entry pricing.
Deal Risk and Market Analysis · Package 02
Singapore
If Singapore is on the shortlist and you want the honest read on whether the numbers work for your buyer profile at current pricing.
Singapore CCR residential assessed against a 60% ABSD burden. Macro context, acquisition cost stack, weighted risk matrix, scenario modelling across FTA and non-FTA buyer profiles, capital structure analysis, and exit liquidity assessment. The verdict is conditional and pricing sensitive. For most non-FTA foreign buyers the income case does not hold at current entry pricing. The analysis says so and models exactly why.
Deal Risk and Market Analysis · Package 02
Spain
If Spain is in the conversation and you need the entry cost and thesis mapped before the lawyer gets involved.
Spain keeps coming back into the frame because the structural story is genuinely durable. Chronic undersupply, sustained price growth, and a coastal and urban market that attracts capital independent of any single programme. The entry cost is the honest constraint, and this document starts there. Once you have worked through the acquisition stack, the thesis becomes clear: appreciation does the work, income provides the carry. The document maps where the entry discipline threshold sits and why it is there.
Deal Risk Memo · Package 01
UAE
If your adviser is telling you Dubai is the play right now and you want a second read from someone with no stake in the outcome.
Dubai at Stage 7 of the Causal Chain. The HNWI relocation wave has run, pricing is 25 to 35 percent above where it was two years ago, and the cycle extension tools introduced in 2026 confirm the thesis rather than reset it. The verdict is DO NOT DEPLOY. The Strait of Hormuz has reopened under an MOU that has not yet been tested across a full shipping recovery cycle. The sukuk credit market has already rendered its own verdict on developer health. When the consensus is uniformly bullish and the independent read says wait, that is what the independent read says.
Market Intelligence Brief
Six Markets
Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, and New Zealand assessed on the same framework across seven criteria: ownership and access, acquisition cost stack, capital mobility, currency and debasement, regulatory direction, real return after full cost stack, and exit liquidity under stress. Each market receives a verdict. Some of those verdicts are uncomfortable. That is the point.
Frequently Asked Questions
What law governs the engagement?
Malaysian law, with disputes subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts. The Client Advisory Engagement Terms set out the full framework and are issued and countersigned before any work begins. Knowing the governing law before a single piece of analysis is commissioned is how serious engagements should work. It protects both sides.
How do I know the analysis is genuinely independent?
I earn no commission, accept no referral fees, and hold no commercial relationship with any developer, agent, or financial institution in any covered market. The fee paid for the engagement is the only fee I earn. That structure is the independence. Not a disclosure buried in the terms. The business model is the guarantee.
What happens if the analysis concludes I should not buy?
The verdict says so, directly and with the full reasoning stated. That is not a failure of the engagement. It is the engagement working as it should. A process that can only produce a buy signal is not analysis. It is a sales document with a methodology attached to it. I have issued verdicts that closed doors rather than opened them. The UAE memo on this site is one of them. The fee is the same either way, which is the only structure that makes an honest negative call possible.
Have you ever told a client something they did not want to hear?
Regularly. I have told clients that the asset they wanted to buy did not work at the price they wanted to pay. I have told intermediaries that the market they were recommending to their clients had structural problems that the headline yield did not show. I have walked away from engagements where the scope of the brief would have required me to reach a conclusion before the analysis was done. None of that is comfortable. All of it is the job. The clients who come back are the ones who received a verdict that saved them from something, not the ones who were told what they arrived hoping to hear.
What is the minimum capital deployment?
USD $250,000 per transaction. The analytical framework is built for decisions where the capital at risk justifies institutional-grade diligence. Below that threshold, the depth of the engagement is unlikely to be proportionate to what it costs.
Which markets do you cover?
Fourteen markets across four continents. Asia-Pacific covers Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, New Zealand, and Thailand. The Middle East covers the UAE. Europe covers England, Scotland, Wales, Cyprus, Germany, Portugal, and Spain. The Americas covers Mexico. Each package covers a single asset in a single market. The Advisory Call and Mandate can span multiple markets, confirmed at scoping. Analytical depth and data quality vary by market and are discussed at the pre-engagement call.
How deep is the coverage in each market?
It varies by market and I will tell you precisely where each one sits before anything is agreed. Quite a number of these markets I have been operating in for the better part of two decades, built the networks, conducted the transactions, and know how the data moves and where the gaps are. Others I cover with analytical rigour but the on-the-ground depth is thinner, and I will say that plainly. Japan is a good example of a market where the analytical framework is solid but the data environment is demanding and the language barrier adds meaningful time and cost. Thailand and Mexico sit in a similar position. In each case that affects scope, delivery timeline, and in some cases pricing. None of that is a surprise. It is confirmed at the pre-engagement call before any commitment is made. That is exactly what the call is for.
Which asset classes do you cover?
Residential is the core of what I do and it is covered across all 14 markets. Commercial is a different discipline with different valuation methodologies, different data inputs, different risk variables, and a different analytical framework built around tenant quality, income sustainability, lease structure, covenant strength, and void risk. I have commercial experience, but I am honest to myself and transparent to you about where my depth meets the standard I hold myself to and where it does not. Commercial analysis is available in markets where my data access, network depth, and on-the-ground experience are strong enough to produce work I can stand behind. Where that threshold is not met, I will say so at the pre-engagement call rather than take on an engagement I cannot do to the required standard. That conversation happens before any commitment is made.
Do your fees scale with the size of the asset?
No. Fees are fixed to the scope and complexity of the analytical work, not the value of the asset being evaluated. There is no percentage of deal value, no success fee, and no mechanism by which the size of the transaction influences what I earn. That is what fee-only means in practice. Where commercial analysis is within scope, it will almost always price higher than a comparable residential engagement at the same package level. The analytical work is more demanding and the data layers are more complex. The variables that affect pricing are market complexity, data accessibility, timeliness, quality, language, and asset class. Not the price tag on the deal.
Can I start with an advisory call rather than a package?
Yes. The Advisory Call is a standalone paid engagement at USD $750 for the first hour and USD $650 per hour thereafter. It is prepared, structured, and produces a written post-call summary within 24 hours. It is a diagnostic and it is not a sales conversation. If a full package engagement follows, the call cost is not deducted. It is a separate engagement.
How does the pre-engagement call work?
Once you have read through the engagement types and identified the right fit, book a 30-minute pre-engagement call. The call confirms the asset, the market, the scope, and the timeline before any invoice is issued or work begins. If it is not the right fit I will say so. Plainly and quickly.
How are payments structured?
The Advisory Call and Deal Risk Memo are invoiced in full on engagement. Deal Risk and Market Analysis and Full Acquisition Underwriting are 50% on invoice and 50% on delivery. Mandate payment structure is agreed at scoping. Payment is via Wise in USD, GBP, EUR, SGD, AED, JPY, CHF, or NZD. Work begins only after the deposit clears.
What happens after the analysis is delivered?
Every engagement includes a post-delivery debrief: 30 minutes for the Deal Risk Memo, 60 minutes for Deal Risk and Market Analysis, 90 minutes for Full Acquisition Underwriting. The debrief covers the findings, the methodology, and any questions on the analysis. For the Full Acquisition Underwriting, there is also a 30-day support window: if market, regulatory, or macro conditions materially change within 30 days of delivery, the analysis is updated at no additional charge. Beyond that, the engagement is complete. If further work is needed, whether a new scenario, a changed asset, or a follow-on market, that is a new engagement scoped and agreed in writing.
Make an Enquiry
Some questions are better asked in writing.
A scoping call is the right next step for most people. But some questions are better asked in writing, and some situations call for a bit more context before a diary slot makes sense. If that is where you are, use this form. I read every submission personally and respond within two working days if there is a fit.
The minimum capital threshold applies here as it does everywhere else. If the transaction or deployment under consideration is below USD $250,000, this is not the right practice for it.
The right next step depends on where you are in the decision.
Some people arrive here with a specific asset in front of them and a deadline. Some are earlier than that. A market is in the frame, the thesis is forming, and they need a read before committing more time to it. Some are intermediaries who need a second opinion before a client conversation. Some have been through a process that produced a verdict they are not sure they can trust, and they want a clean look from someone with no stake in the outcome.
All of those are the right reason to get in touch. The 30-minute pre-engagement call is free, unpitched, and exists specifically to work out whether there is a fit before anything else moves. If there is not, I will say so quickly and save us both the time. If there is, we agree scope and terms in writing before any work begins.
The minimum deployment threshold is USD $250,000. Below that, the depth of the engagement is unlikely to be proportionate to what it costs.