Loss/Gain to Lease

Just wondering if there is anyone on here that fore goes loss/gain to lease allowances in valuing apartments. I'm thinking that it penalizes the property, as rent gains/losses are implicit in the cap rate, yield rate, terminal rate and v&c deductions. Also thinking that it's unnecessary, considering that most apartment leases are 6-18 months.

 

i definitely agree that it's overkill because of the length of the leases. unfortunatley you can't ignore it if your GPR is inflated.

you should be able to understand or figure out why it would be factually incorrect to ignore it.

 

Yes but you better not gross up the whole property then. I didn't understand why people did this at first but it's a mark to market type thinking, which is fair, I guess. Where if you want to see where your units stand in a hard to comp market, fast moving market or poor management it can be helpful. It's also just more prevalent in certain markets, operators , managers, etc. It seems that groups have moved to just plain effective in-place rents using the yieldstars of the world.

 
Best Response

You need to think about what the purpose of the number is - it's supposed to gauge how much rent you are losing in a given year based on in-place rents being lower (or higher) than the market rate. Think of this as the same as an existing vs. market rent analysis in a commercial deal. It's not actually lost income because you didn't have it in the first place. You could line it up so that you only have it in year 1 when the in-place leases roll and that would be one way to do it, but most people just use an annual average based on what starting in-place is since technically you will have some every year since you aren't getting increased rents from each unit as the leases are staggered. So short answer no, it's not unnecessarily penalizing the property.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."
 

It's difficult to ignore LTL when underwriting apartment deals given that in reality, property manager will often lease a unit below what your market rent expectation is for a variety of reasons. Not only does LTL happen with new leases, but it happens with renewals as well. For example, a lease expiration is coming up and it's 20% below market but your property manager increases their rent by 10% only for any given reason (ie. the tenant has been paying their rent on time for 5+ years, rent laws, property manager and tenant are crushing on each other, etc).

Since you underwrote a market rent for that unit (new and renewal), the LTL calculation needs to capture some of that lease renewal "market rent shortfall". The same type of scenario happens with new leases.

"Helping you break into the commercial real estate industry" http://www.realestateanatomy.com
 

In my experience, LTL has been total BS, but it depends on if the property is on a daily pricing model. In place rents are taking the market rent and subtracting out the LTL and is a good starting place. If the plan is to acquire and bring to "market" you should determine you're own market rents and bring them up to that as leases turn. If the plan is to value-add, again, I'd start at in-place rent and bring up to market on turns and add the premium after the reno.

 

unfortunately LTL is one of those line items that can be calculated in a time of different ways. A lot of shops will show a huge LTL number, just so that they can show top-line growth at a "steady" 3%, etc. However, it ends up just being a wash when you trickle down to your NER #. A lot of shops will just tack on 1% to the general vacancy...IE instead of 5% make it 6%. Without getting into the debatable math, a back of the envelope approach is to take 50% of your rent growth. IE if your assuming LOL growth is 3%, your LTL is 1.5%. Again, not an exact science but if you're looking for a quick and dirty "HP calculator" valuation, this gets you within the red zone.

 

Consequuntur cupiditate nulla voluptatem blanditiis debitis. Quod distinctio quae et quia non quis consequatur.

Vero ipsum et perspiciatis voluptatum officiis placeat illum dolorem. Odio velit molestiae commodi nihil.

Dolores molestiae eum aut animi. Suscipit quia debitis rem sunt aperiam et. Aliquam nihil id quisquam amet laboriosam. Eos fugiat dolore voluptatibus veniam est qui aperiam. Modi ipsum aut porro minus fuga.

Consequatur omnis minus ea excepturi eius. Repellat iste est velit iure. Sequi modi dolorem laboriosam veniam ea.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”