Example

What an evaluation looks like

This is a real evaluation of a sample deal, scored against the Small Multifamily Value-Add buy box. Nothing here is summarised or trimmed — it is the same output you get on your own deals.

Maple Court Apartments is not a real property. The figures are invented for illustration and the analysis is an example of the product’s output, not investment advice.

Maple Court Apartments

1420 Maple Court, Greenville, SC 29601

Asking price

$2.85M

NOI

$191,000

Cap rate

6.7%

Units

71Strong

Dig DeeperDeal Verdict

A fairly priced 1984-vintage 28-unit in a secondary market with genuine rent upside, held back by deferred capital needs and a rent roll that has not been verified. The 6.7% cap clears the buy box, but the seller's expense load looks light for a building this age and the two vacant units have been down long enough to warrant asking why. Worth a closer look, contingent on a rent roll and a roof inspection.

Well evidencedBased on 8 of 10 key inputs

What would sharpen this

Revenue or expenses — Needed to sanity-check the seller's NOI — a light expense load is the most common overstatement.
Rent roll — The single document that most improves tenant quality — without it that score is inferred from occupancy alone.

Your Buy-Box Fit6 of 6 met

Asking price

Target $1M–$5M

$2.9M

Cap rate

Target ≥ 6%

6.7%

Cash-on-cash

Target ≥ 8%

needs data

Unit count

Target 5–50

Year built

Target ≥ 1970

1984

Property type

Target Multifamily

Multifamily

Market

Target Greenville, SC

Greenville, SC

Measured against your Small Multifamily Value-Add buy box.

Category Breakdown

Your overall score is the weighted average of these, using the weights set on this buy box.

Financial Returns30% of your score74

Cap rate of 6.7% on the asking price clears the 6.0% floor, and price per unit of $101,786 is reasonable for this vintage.

Show details

NOI of $191,000 on $2,850,000 gives a 6.7% cap rate at ask. The stated operating expense ratio is roughly 42% of gross revenue, which is light for a 1984 building — 45–50% is more typical once you fund reserves properly, and the seller's figures do not appear to include a replacement reserve. Normalising expenses to 47% would pull NOI closer to $176,000 and the cap to about 6.2%, still inside the buy box but with far less cushion. Levered cash-on-cash is an estimate only: no debt quote was provided, so this uses default financing assumptions rather than real terms.

Market & Location20% of your score76

Greenville is a steady secondary market, though no submarket data was supplied to verify rent comparables.

Show details

General context only: Greenville has seen consistent in-migration and a diversified employment base, which typically supports small multifamily. Nothing in the provided materials substantiates submarket rents, absorption or new supply for this specific location, so this score reflects the absence of contradicting evidence rather than verified strength. A rent comparability study would move this materially in either direction.

Physical Condition20% of your score58

1984 construction with an original roof disclosed in the offering memorandum and no inspection report provided.

Show details

The offering memorandum notes the roof is original to the building, which at roughly 40 years is well past typical service life for the assembly. No inspection report, capital expenditure history or unit-turn schedule was provided, so HVAC, plumbing and electrical condition are unknown. Budget a roof replacement as a near-term certainty rather than a contingency; on a 28-unit building of this footprint that is a meaningful share of the first year's cash flow.

Tenant Quality10% of your score62

89% occupancy is acceptable but below stabilised, and no rent roll was provided to assess tenancy.

Show details

Three of 28 units are vacant. Without a rent roll there is no visibility into lease expirations, delinquency, concessions, or how many tenants are month-to-month. Occupancy alone cannot distinguish a building with stable long-term tenants from one with heavy turnover being papered over with concessions. This score is inferred from occupancy only and should be revisited once a certified rent roll is in hand.

Risk Assessment10% of your score66

Risks are ordinary for the asset class and mostly diligence-resolvable, with capital expenditure the main exposure.

Show details

The principal risks are a known near-term roof replacement, an expense load that looks understated, and an unverified rent roll. None is disqualifying and all three are resolvable before closing. There is no disclosed environmental issue, litigation or title defect. The main unquantified exposure is what a full inspection turns up behind the roof.

Red Flags (4)

highPhysical Condition

Original roof at roughly 40 years

The offering memorandum discloses the roof as original to 1984 construction. This is past typical service life and should be treated as a near-term capital requirement, not a contingency. Price it into the offer rather than hoping it holds.

highFinancial Returns

Operating expense ratio looks understated

At roughly 42% of gross revenue, the seller's expense load is light for a 1984 building and appears to exclude a replacement reserve. Normalising to 47% reduces NOI by roughly $15,000 and the cap rate at ask to about 6.2%.

mediumTenant Quality

No rent roll provided

Tenant quality, lease expirations, delinquency and concessions are all unknown. Occupancy of 89% could reflect a stable base or heavy turnover being masked — the materials do not distinguish between them.

mediumTenant Quality

Three units vacant with no stated down-time

The materials do not say how long the three vacant units have been off-line or why. Extended vacancy in specific units often signals a condition problem rather than soft demand.

Questions for the Broker (5)

1.
Can you provide a certified rent roll and trailing twelve months of operating statements?
To Ask
Why: Both tenant quality and the expense ratio are currently inferred rather than verified. These two documents resolve the largest open questions in the analysis.
2.
What capital improvements have been made in the last five years, and is there a roof warranty or recent inspection?
To Ask
Why: The roof is disclosed as original. The answer determines whether replacement is an immediate cost or can be deferred, which moves the offer price materially.
3.
How long have the three vacant units been off-line, and why?
To Ask
Why: Distinguishes ordinary turnover from units that cannot be rented in their current condition.
4.
Do the stated operating expenses include a replacement reserve, property management, and current-year taxes at the reassessed value?
To Ask
Why: A 42% expense ratio on a 1984 building usually means one of these is missing. Reassessment after sale is a common surprise.
5.
What are current asking rents at the two closest comparable properties?
To Ask
Why: The value-add thesis rests on rents being below market. Nothing provided substantiates the gap.

Recommended Next Steps

1
Request the certified rent roll and T-12 before making an offer
Two of the four red flags and two category scores are limited by their absence. Everything else is secondary until these are in hand.
2
Commission a roof inspection and get two replacement quotes
Converts the largest known capital item from an estimate into a number you can negotiate against.
3
Re-underwrite at a 47% expense ratio with a funded reserve
Tests whether the deal still clears your return targets on normalised rather than seller-stated expenses.
4
Pull asking rents at the two nearest comparable properties
Substantiates or kills the rent-upside thesis the value-add plan depends on.

Score your own deal

Start from a buy-box preset, paste a listing, and get a verdict. Free accounts include three evaluations a month.