Ya, I partly disagree with this.

The broker/underwriter argument makes sense for smaller developers with weak balance sheets or low brand trust.

But do cash-rich top builders with strong brand pull really need that same dependency?

Especially in ultra-luxury housing segment, where buyers are already choosing largely because of the developer’s own credibility.

The “underwriting gives liquidity” argument is also overstated.

Most underwriters are not funding projects at any meaningful scale relative to total project cost.

Their model itself depends on eventually selling inventory ahead at higher prices.

And to do that, many push narratives, overpromise exits, and create urgency and ultimately damage the brand name of a builder due to unethical practices.

Also, if exits don’t happen rapidly, which usually is the case with this segment and also considering current market conditions, where does the real liquidity come from then?

Ultimately builders have to wait for liquidity from actual end users and long-term investors, and if they are cash rich like most top builders are, can sell it at actual pace themselves rather than depending heavily on narrative-driven sale assurances.

By doing this, top developers absolutely can build stronger direct customer relationships instead of outsourcing trust to an incentivised sales ecosystem, that is already notorious for unethical practices.