The reserve is $250 a lot in one fund and $600 in the other

Comparing two LP offerings, both acquiring small parks in the same three states, and the assumptions are far enough apart that one of them has to be wrong.

Fund A: 5-year hold, $250 per lot per year capex reserve, lot rents taken from $275 to $400 over three years on the theory that they're 30% below market. Water and sewer modeled at 100% pass-through by year two. Exit at 6.0 cap on year-5 NOI.

Fund B: 7-year hold, $600 per lot per year reserve, 4% annual lot rent increases, water pass-through at 85% recovery to allow for line loss, exit at 6.75.

Fund A's "below market" claim rests on three comps inside a 40 mile radius, two of which are institutionally owned communities with paved roads and a clubhouse. The subject parks have gravel and private lagoons. I think that gap is a quality gap rather than a pricing gap, and that a 45% rent increase over three years in a small town invites exactly the regulatory and press attention the sector keeps getting.

Two things I want to pressure test. How do you test a below-market lot rent claim when the only true comps are two other mom-and-pop parks nobody will give you a rent roll for, and what reserve per lot is defensible on private lagoon and well systems where a single permit decision can turn into a six-figure event?