NovA Phnom Penh office is a new brief, not a substitute apartment
An office presentation can change a buyer's interest. Before comparing the numbers, the purpose of the Cambodia purchase needs another look.
This article reflects the named expert’s practical perspective. See NovAsia’s editorial policy for how material is prepared and reviewed.
If you originally wanted somewhere to stay in Phnom Penh, an office cannot satisfy that part of the brief. A compelling income presentation may introduce a different opportunity, but it does not preserve the option of living in the property.
There is nothing wrong with changing direction. I simply want the change to be explicit before the comparison becomes a contest between percentages.
The NovAsia profile includes a link to a tour of Odom Tower, identified as an office project. The income and buyback arrangements discussed there are attributed to the developer. Interest in that material is a reason to ask more questions, not to assume the buyer has already agreed to a different use for their money.
Who is going to use the space?
For each potential purchase, we need to understand the intended user, the condition in which the space would be handed over and any work needed before it could serve that purpose. The answers for an apartment and an office may be quite different. A headline return leaves those differences largely untouched.
The buyer's role after completion also deserves a fresh conversation. Are they expecting somebody else to arrange occupation and handle the property? What does the proposed arrangement actually cover, and which party is responsible? “The developer handles everything” needs more detail before it can inform a decision.
An income programme does not, by itself, demonstrate demand for an office. Nor would I treat an apartment as an automatically understandable investment merely because its furniture is easier to picture. Both need evidence appropriate to the proposed use.
The two income figures may describe different things
A projected rent and a payment programme in a contract are not the same basis for a number. Before comparing them, the payer, start point, duration and conditions need to be identified. Costs, taxes and the eventual exit also require consideration; an attractive presentation does not calculate those for this particular buyer.
Somebody buying for personal stays might quite reasonably decide that this is no longer the discussion they wanted. Another buyer may prefer to examine the office as a separate asset. Neither response needs to be talked away.
For the buyer who still plans to visit, accommodation remains a separate question. Choosing an office leaves that need, and its budget, unresolved. That housing need stays in the conversation even if the office proposal has become more interesting than the original apartment search.
Treat the office idea as a second investment case
If the office has become genuinely interesting, I would give it its own brief instead of forcing it into the apartment comparison. The first question is whether the original housing need still exists. If it does, the buyer has not replaced one solution with another; they have introduced a second use of capital while the accommodation problem remains open.
From there, the evidence changes. For a home, personal use can justify choices that are not primarily financial. For an office bought as an investment, the expected user, route to occupancy, operating responsibilities and exit become central. A percentage on a sales slide cannot substitute for those details.
It is also useful to separate contractual payment programmes from market-based projections. Both may be relevant, but they are not the same kind of number. A projected rent depends on assumptions about occupancy, pricing and costs. A payment programme depends on the wording, duration, conditions and responsible counterparty. Putting the two percentages next to each other without their basis creates a false sense of comparability.
The buyer’s workload belongs in the model
Two investments can show similar headline returns while demanding very different amounts of involvement. One may require the owner to make decisions about tenants, fit-out or management. Another may have an arrangement under which more of those tasks are delegated. The actual scope and responsible party matter more than a vague promise that “everything is managed.”
I would therefore compare the offers through a broader cash-and-responsibility view: purchase price, timing of payments, costs before the space can be used, recurring charges, management scope, who pays income under any programme, and what the buyer would need to do if the planned arrangement ends. Unknown cells should stay unknown until supported.
There is no need to talk someone into keeping the office under consideration. If the buyer wanted a place to stay in Phnom Penh, discovering that the office proposal solves a different problem is itself valuable. If they decide they do want a separate commercial asset, the change should be deliberate enough that we can build a fresh set of questions around it.
The key distinction is purpose. Once purpose changes, the evidence required to support the purchase changes with it. That is why I would rather restart the brief than pretend an office is simply a more profitable version of an apartment.
Sources
1. NovAsia, Valeria Lezhenina profile, Odom Tower tour section — office use and attribution of the programmes to the developer. Accessed 27 September 2026. 2. NovAsia, Odom Tower project page — project use. This article does not quote current prices or programme terms. Accessed 27 September 2026.