Hospitality math and land math value the same park a third apart
I've been reading two write ups on the same kind of asset and the valuation gap is doing my head in.
Write up one treats an RV park as hospitality. Revenue per available site night, occupancy, seasonality curves, a management fee whether or not one is being paid, reserves for amenities, and a cap rate in the range you'd expect for something operationally intensive and economically sensitive. Discretionary travel spending, so a risk premium.
Write up two treats it as land and infrastructure. Acres, entitled site count, utility capacity in place, replacement cost per site, comparison to what raw acreage plus development would run. Under that lens the operating business is almost a bonus, and the floor under your money is the dirt and the pipe.
On the same 60 site park at the same statements, those two approaches came out about a third apart. The hospitality lens was the low one.
I can argue either. The land lens is honest about what happens if operations fail, which in this sector is a real scenario given seasonality and a soft travel year. The hospitality lens is honest about the fact that nobody buys 60 improved sites for the pleasure of owning gravel, they buy the income, and income is what services debt.
Where I keep getting stuck is that these aren't just two answers, they're two different questions about the same asset. If you were writing the check, which one sets your price and which one sets your comfort?
Which lens sets your actual offer price on an operating RV park?
21 votes