Have heard this term thrown around recently by institutional groups with different buckets of capital for different risk strategies.
Curious how folks would define a "value-to-core" strategy. Would purchasing a new construction partially leased project in a core location, stabilizing, and holding at a core-type stabilized yield qualify?
Most funds (never say never) would purchase a value add asset for core yields. They will purchase a value add asset, stabilize it, and sell it with a yield that reflects the stabilization of the asset. If you purchased new construction, partially leased in a core location - I would qualify this as a value add play which can become core if it stabilizes.
Has anyone ever purchased a value-add/opp deal with no aspirations of it ending up core? "Build to core", "value to core"... of course they want it to stabilize so I don't get why these terms get thrown around so much.
Because it sounds cooler when you're out raising capital. You're right though
I've seen it used for Tier I markets only (develop to core)
Rent stabilized building on the Upper East Side with below market tenants--->legal war to evict/force tenants into favorable buyouts--->rennovate above $2,700 per month and convert to free market--->core. Not in the sense of being institutional grade core but in the sense of having a family office/some rich Chinese dude pay for "core."
Natus adipisci excepturi hic nihil sit. Explicabo rerum quis quae eligendi ullam.
Et doloribus impedit non voluptate cumque iste. Fuga sit cumque adipisci similique rerum. Rerum illum eaque deleniti voluptate sit temporibus sunt cupiditate.
Aperiam quia vero temporibus quidem qui quae. Distinctio exercitationem nihil et molestias. Sint quia recusandae vero architecto. Perspiciatis eum totam in voluptates qui et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...