2 in 5 property managers open to breaking with trust account tradition

That is an 8 percentage point increase in willingness to consider a different way of handling rent payments.

Agile Market Intelligence conducted both studies, surveying 250 Australian property management professionals for the FY24–25 report and 320 for FY25–26. Participants worked in agencies offering property management services and understood how their agency handled rent roll transactions.

Start-ups puts trust accounts under pressure

Given the opportunity to build an agency from scratch, a substantial minority would take a different route.

Asked how they would handle payments if starting their own agency tomorrow, 34 per cent of respondents expressing a preference would choose an alternative to running their own trust account.

Automated direct payments attracted 25 per cent, while 9 per cent chose an outsourced trust account. The remaining 66 per cent preferred running their own trust account. These figures exclude the 12 per cent who were unsure.

Among those choosing an alternative, direct payments were the clear favourite, accounting for almost three quarters of that group.

There is an important distinction between the two alternatives. Outsourcing retains a trust account but places its management elsewhere. Automated direct payments provide a separate payment model.

The findings therefore show one in three would avoid running their own trust account, with one in four specifically choosing direct payments.

Most agencies still run their own trust account

Current practice remains dominated by traditional trust accounting.

Across the FY25–26 sample, 85 per cent of respondents said their agency used a traditional trust account, 9 per cent reported automated direct payments and 6 per cent an outsourced trust account.

Taken together, 15 per cent reported an alternative to managing a trust account internally.

For an established agency, changing payment models means assessing the effect on staff, clients and daily operations. A new business can make that choice before those processes become embedded.

The start-up question shows how much more open the decision becomes when respondents imagine beginning with a clean slate.

Compliance concerns apply the brakes

Interest is growing, but agencies still want answers.

Among respondents not already using automated direct payments, 43 per cent cited compliance and legal concerns as a barrier to adopting an alternative. The same proportion identified this barrier in the earlier report. Ongoing costs were cited by 32 per cent, while 29 per cent lacked a clear understanding of how alternatives worked and 28 per cent lacked a clear understanding of their benefits.

Separately, almost a third of this group, 32 per cent, were unaware that alternatives were available.

For payment providers, that sets a clear task. Explain how money moves, who is responsible and what obligations remain. Put the costs on the table and show what implementation involves. Cost concerns also deserve to be taken seriously as commercial questions. Principals need enough detail to assess the full financial impact on their agency.

Payment administration consumes days of staff time

The latest research also puts the workload of handling rent payments into focus.

Nearly a third of respondents, 31 per cent, said their agency spent more than two days each month reconciling or managing rent roll transactions. Meanwhile, 56 per cent reported one day or less.

These figures cover all payment models and do not isolate the time spent by traditional trust account users or establish savings from direct payments.

They do give principals a reason to examine their own numbers.

How much staff time goes into payment administration each month? What does that work cost? And how would the workload, fees and service requirements change under an alternative?

With more professionals willing to consider another approach, those are questions payment providers need to answer convincingly.