El modelo de Managed Client Agreement promovido por las grandes multinacionales del sector Flex Office presenta una asimetría estructural crítica: el propietario del inmueble asume el 100% del riesgo patrimonial y los costes fijos, mientras cede el control operativo, comercial y contable a un gestor que a menudo prioriza los intereses de su red corporativa sobre la rentabilidad del activo local.
The Managed Client Agreement model promoted by large multinational Flex Office operators presents a critical structural asymmetry: the property owner assumes 100% of the patrimonial risk and fixed costs, while ceding operational, commercial, and accounting control to a manager who often prioritizes the interests of their corporate network over the profitability of the local asset.
Contexto del Caso
Case Context
Activo: Local comercial de 463 m², totalmente equipado y operativo.
Modelo Contractual: Managed Client Agreement con Operador Global Tipo A (filial local SPV).
Duración antes de la intervención: 3 meses de operativa opaca.
Síntoma inicial: Liquidaciones mensuales con “Gastos Impagados” ficticios, a pesar de una ocupación reportada, y negativa sistemática a facilitar acceso a los sistemas de gestión.
Asset: 463 m² commercial space, fully equipped and operational.
Contractual Model: Managed Client Agreement with Global Operator Type A (local SPV subsidiary).
Duration before intervention: 3 months of opaque operation.
Initial symptom: Monthly settlements with fictitious “Unpaid Costs”, despite reported occupancy, and systematic refusal to provide access to management systems.
