Offering Detail<\/h2>\n\n- 7-units, a mix of 1 and 2-bed apartments<\/li>\n
- Building approximately 100 years old<\/li>\n
- Large lot in the Northeast (Hint: landscaping and snow plowing costs)<\/li>\n
- Coin-operated laundry in place<\/li>\n
- Building fully-occupied with no vacancies reported the past two years<\/li>\n
- Current owner self-manages and owner provided 2 years of historical financials<\/li>\n
- Broker assembled a pro forma<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Actual numbers are adjusted slightly so as to not call out the deal and this broker specifically.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what I saw in my analysis. Have a look for yourself and let me know your thoughts by leaving a comment under this article. I\u2019ll do my best to reply to all your comments.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n<\/td>\n 2015 Actual<\/strong><\/td>\n2016 Actual<\/strong><\/td>\nBroker’s<\/em> Pro-forma<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nINCOME<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\u00a0 Rent<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n$85,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 (Less Vacancy 5%)<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n($4,250)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Net Rent<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n$80,750<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\u00a0 Other Income<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\u00a0 Laundry<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n$700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Pet Fees<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n$350<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Other Income<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n$700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Total Other Income<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n$1,750<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\u00a0 TOTAL INCOME<\/strong><\/td>\n\n$75,000<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n$74,100<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n$82,500<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nEXPENSES<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\u00a0 Utilities<\/td>\n \n$11,700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$8,660<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$10,532<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Landscaping & Snow Plowing<\/td>\n \n$4,400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$3,100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Property Management<\/td>\n \n–<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n–<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$4,125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 General & Administrative<\/td>\n \n$2,900<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$5,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Insurance<\/td>\n \n$4,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$4,100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$3,350<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Property Tax<\/td>\n \n$12,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$12,400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$12,400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Repairs & Maintenance<\/td>\n \n$18,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$13,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$3,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 Advertising & Marketing<\/td>\n \n$275<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$250<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n$700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\u00a0 TOTAL EXPENSES<\/strong><\/td>\n\n$53,275<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n$46,510<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n$35,507<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\nNET OPERATING INCOME<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n$21,725<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n$27,590<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n$46,993<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nIncome<\/h2>\n
It appears the current owner is only reporting a single number for income, inclusive of rent, laundry income (unless laundry income isn\u2019t stated), and any other fees. The slight Year Over Year (YoY) decrease in income could just be a decrease in laundry usage or other fees (if other fees are being charged). It could also be tenants behind in rent.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.biggerpockets.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/value-add-multifamily.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n
Rent<\/h3>\n
Monthly rent can be increased $75-100 per unit, with some cosmetic updates to units. That\u2019s $6,300-8,400 per year total for the building.<\/p>\n
The broker used the high estimate for the increase in rent. Based on the local market, the projected rents are reasonable. However, increasing the monthly per unit rate by $100 when the existing rent is well under $1,000 per month may not be realistic all at once.<\/p>\n
To get that increase, you would need to:<\/p>\n
\n- Make the cosmetic enhancements one unit at a time as vacancies occur and charge the next tenant $100 more.\n
\n- The risk here is it could take years for this to happen. Remember, the current owner reports no vacancies for the past two years.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Evict the tenants, make cosmetic updates, and charge higher rents to the new tenants.\n
\n- This is the simplest way to do it in my opinion, but it also eliminates some or all income for a while. If the existing tenants are good tenants, this may not be a good idea.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Without cosmetic enhancements, increase the monthly rent by a full $100 per unit all at once (in this area, there is no legal maximum increase).\n
\n- The risk here is the existing tenants can\u2019t afford a large increase and\/or feel some kind of injustice at paying so much higher for the same unit and leave.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Laundry<\/h3>\n
Does the historical total income reported by the owner include laundry? The broker or current owner might be able to answer that. The 2015 and 2016 numbers don\u2019t break down rent from other income.<\/p>\n
The pro forma includes the existing total income, plus the rent increase, plus laundry income.<\/p>\n
There could be some double-counting of laundry income in the pro forma.<\/p>\n
Pet Fee, Other Income<\/h3>\n
This one is interesting. With the current owner self-managing and not breaking down any tenant fees in the financials, it\u2019s doubtful (s)he was charging pet fees, but it\u2019s possible. The pet fee could be double-counted in the pro forma. (Ask about this.)<\/p>\n
What is \u201cother income\u201d? The pro forma states it\u2019s estimated at $100 per unit per year. It could be late fees, but if current tenants have been there for at least two years continuously, that number may not be realistic.<\/p>\n
Expenses<\/h2>\n
The expenses here hint at a story. Two years of stabilized tenants, yet 2015 expenses were quite a bit higher than 2016. Why?<\/p>\n
Utilities, Landscaping & Snow Plowing<\/h3>\n
Utilities decreased 25.9% YoY, and repairs and maintenance decreased 27.7%. Snow plowing costs also went down. The differences here could be attributed to the milder 2016 winter relative to 2015. It\u2019s an older building likely without insulation, and the better weather also could have resulted in fewer repairs. There are some assumptions in there, so I would ask the broker and owner to explain.<\/p>\n
Landscaping and snow plowing? Unless you\u2019ll be shoveling snow yourself or we somehow know mother nature isn\u2019t planning a northeast snowfall this year, the big decrease in the pro forma snow plowing cost isn\u2019t at all realistic. Call a contractor and get an estimate to plug-in.<\/p>\n
Property Management, General & Administrative<\/h3>\n
The current owner self-manages. Presumably, some related management costs are accounted for in \u201cgeneral and administrative\u201d in 2015 and 2016.<\/p>\n
The pro forma general and administrative expense is a reasonable estimate and should go down, since the new owner may not self-manage.<\/p>\n
The pro-forma includes 5% of rent for property management services. In this region, the standard is 10%, with a bunch of fees piled on (see a breakdown of property management fees here<\/a>). I would plug in a more realistic property management cost in the analysis.<\/p>\nInsurance & Property Taxes<\/h3>\n
Insurance costs are also projected to go down. Based on my experience, the current owner more often than not is getting a decent rate. A good analysis should include a slight increase<\/em> in insurance costs unless the current cost is clearly too high (that would be another thing to ask about) or unless you know a really good insurance broker.<\/p>\nThe pro forma predicts stable property taxes. To be safe, a slight increase the same amount as seen as in 2016 would be prudent. This isn\u2019t a large amount and definitely not a deal breaker.<\/p>\n
Advertising & Marketing<\/h3>\n
It\u2019s a safe assumption these costs will increase if you\u2019ll be vacating the units to make repairs, increasing turnover. Personally, I would place the marketing burden on the shoulders of the property manager and negotiate those costs as covered under the 10% fee.<\/p>\n
My Analysis<\/h2>\n
After looking at the expenses, there isn\u2019t a projection for the needed cosmetic repairs to get the higher rent. If I want the higher rent, I\u2019ll probably need to make the cosmetic repairs. If I get as far as a property visit, I\u2019ll try to eyeball this or bring along a contractor.<\/p>\n
Below is a sample that I put together to analyze this deal myself.<\/p>\n
![\"analyze-multifamily\"](\"https:\/\/www.biggerpockets.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/analyze-multifamily.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
\n
\nRelated:<\/strong> 5 Ways to Jump Up to Large-Scale Multifamily Investing<\/a><\/em><\/p>\nMy assumptions:<\/p>\n
Income<\/h3>\n
Actual numbers are adjusted slightly so as to not call out the deal and this broker specifically.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what I saw in my analysis. Have a look for yourself and let me know your thoughts by leaving a comment under this article. I\u2019ll do my best to reply to all your comments.<\/p>\n
| <\/td>\n | 2015 Actual<\/strong><\/td>\n| 2016 Actual<\/strong><\/td>\n | Broker’s<\/em> Pro-forma<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n | INCOME<\/strong><\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \u00a0 Rent<\/strong><\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n | $85,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \u00a0 (Less Vacancy 5%)<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n | ($4,250)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \u00a0 Net Rent<\/strong><\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n | $80,750<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \u00a0 Other Income<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \u00a0 Laundry<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n | $700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \u00a0 Pet Fees<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n | $350<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \u00a0 Other Income<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n | $700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \u00a0 Total Other Income<\/strong><\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n | $1,750<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \u00a0 TOTAL INCOME<\/strong><\/td>\n | \n | $75,000<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n $74,100<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n $82,500<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $11,700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $8,660<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $10,532<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $4,400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $3,100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n –<\/p>\n<\/td>\n –<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $4,125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $2,900<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $5,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $4,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $4,100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $3,350<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $12,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $12,400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $12,400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $18,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $13,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $3,000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $275<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $250<\/p>\n<\/td>\n $700<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n $53,275<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n $46,510<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n $35,507<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n NET OPERATING INCOME<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n $21,725<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n $27,590<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n $46,993<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n It appears the current owner is only reporting a single number for income, inclusive of rent, laundry income (unless laundry income isn\u2019t stated), and any other fees. The slight Year Over Year (YoY) decrease in income could just be a decrease in laundry usage or other fees (if other fees are being charged). It could also be tenants behind in rent.<\/p>\n Monthly rent can be increased $75-100 per unit, with some cosmetic updates to units. That\u2019s $6,300-8,400 per year total for the building.<\/p>\n The broker used the high estimate for the increase in rent. Based on the local market, the projected rents are reasonable. However, increasing the monthly per unit rate by $100 when the existing rent is well under $1,000 per month may not be realistic all at once.<\/p>\n To get that increase, you would need to:<\/p>\n Does the historical total income reported by the owner include laundry? The broker or current owner might be able to answer that. The 2015 and 2016 numbers don\u2019t break down rent from other income.<\/p>\n The pro forma includes the existing total income, plus the rent increase, plus laundry income.<\/p>\n There could be some double-counting of laundry income in the pro forma.<\/p>\n This one is interesting. With the current owner self-managing and not breaking down any tenant fees in the financials, it\u2019s doubtful (s)he was charging pet fees, but it\u2019s possible. The pet fee could be double-counted in the pro forma. (Ask about this.)<\/p>\n What is \u201cother income\u201d? The pro forma states it\u2019s estimated at $100 per unit per year. It could be late fees, but if current tenants have been there for at least two years continuously, that number may not be realistic.<\/p>\n The expenses here hint at a story. Two years of stabilized tenants, yet 2015 expenses were quite a bit higher than 2016. Why?<\/p>\n Utilities decreased 25.9% YoY, and repairs and maintenance decreased 27.7%. Snow plowing costs also went down. The differences here could be attributed to the milder 2016 winter relative to 2015. It\u2019s an older building likely without insulation, and the better weather also could have resulted in fewer repairs. There are some assumptions in there, so I would ask the broker and owner to explain.<\/p>\n Landscaping and snow plowing? Unless you\u2019ll be shoveling snow yourself or we somehow know mother nature isn\u2019t planning a northeast snowfall this year, the big decrease in the pro forma snow plowing cost isn\u2019t at all realistic. Call a contractor and get an estimate to plug-in.<\/p>\n The current owner self-manages. Presumably, some related management costs are accounted for in \u201cgeneral and administrative\u201d in 2015 and 2016.<\/p>\n The pro forma general and administrative expense is a reasonable estimate and should go down, since the new owner may not self-manage.<\/p>\n The pro-forma includes 5% of rent for property management services. In this region, the standard is 10%, with a bunch of fees piled on (see a breakdown of property management fees here<\/a>). I would plug in a more realistic property management cost in the analysis.<\/p>\n Insurance costs are also projected to go down. Based on my experience, the current owner more often than not is getting a decent rate. A good analysis should include a slight increase<\/em> in insurance costs unless the current cost is clearly too high (that would be another thing to ask about) or unless you know a really good insurance broker.<\/p>\n The pro forma predicts stable property taxes. To be safe, a slight increase the same amount as seen as in 2016 would be prudent. This isn\u2019t a large amount and definitely not a deal breaker.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a safe assumption these costs will increase if you\u2019ll be vacating the units to make repairs, increasing turnover. Personally, I would place the marketing burden on the shoulders of the property manager and negotiate those costs as covered under the 10% fee.<\/p>\n After looking at the expenses, there isn\u2019t a projection for the needed cosmetic repairs to get the higher rent. If I want the higher rent, I\u2019ll probably need to make the cosmetic repairs. If I get as far as a property visit, I\u2019ll try to eyeball this or bring along a contractor.<\/p>\n Below is a sample that I put together to analyze this deal myself.<\/p>\n My assumptions:<\/p>\n |
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.biggerpockets.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/blog_ads-01.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n