Master lease or management agreement on a 210-unit independent living lite asset, both drafts on my desk

1.27x coverage on a projection is 1.27x on a projection. Run it on trailing. At 88 percent occupancy today, what was actual EBITDAR for the last twelve months, and what's the coverage on that? If trailing is $4.6M you're at 1.12x on day one, and the escalator makes it worse every year until occupancy carries it. I'd also want the lease to define coverage precisely, including whether a management fee to an affiliate sits above or below the line. That definition is where I've seen the argument happen.

The structural difference is who holds the operating result. A master lease converts the property into a credit position on the tenant, so your analysis becomes the tenant's ability to pay through a downturn. A management agreement leaves you with the operating result and the operator's fee sits above your NOI as an expense.

On the guarantee question, one year of guarantor financials against a 15 year term is thin. Things owners typically ask for include audited statements for multiple years, ongoing reporting covenants with a defined delivery date, a net worth or liquidity test the guarantor must maintain, and cure rights that let you replace the operator on a coverage failure rather than waiting for a payment default. Whether any of these are obtainable depends on the operator's negotiating position, and the enforceability of the guarantee itself is a state law question for your attorney.

On the escalator, model expense growth above 2.5 percent and see where coverage lands in year eight. Independent living carries lighter labor and regulatory load than assisted living because there's no personal care component, which helps, though meals and housekeeping still make payroll your largest line and payroll does not respect a fixed escalator.

What the choice depends on is your view of the next five years of occupancy. Sector inventory growth was around 1 percent in 2025, a two-decade low, and occupancy has pushed above 90 percent with a bed shortage projected from 2027. If you believe that shows up in your submarket, you're handing the operator the part of the cycle you were buying. Tax treatment of holding operations directly requires your own tax professional.

Dumb question from the outside. Does the six month deposit even do anything if the operator fails, or does it just cover the time it takes you to find a new one?

tally, that's roughly what it's for. Six months buys you the transition. The question is whether a transition on a building with meals service and residents who chose it for the staff can be done in six months without occupancy dropping, and I don't think it can.

What's EBITDAR? I know EBITDA. Is the R rent?

ember, yes, rent, sometimes rent and restructuring costs. In this context it's earnings before the lease payment, which is exactly the number you need to see whether the lease payment is coverable.

warrant, the thing that would decide it for me is whether you can get a shorter master lease. 15 years with two extensions is the operator's structure. If you can get seven with a market reset, you take the fixed number through the ramp and re-cut it when occupancy is at 94 and your negotiating position is completely different.

Your lender will have a view and it may not be neutral. Debt underwritten against a master lease is underwritten against the lease payment and the guarantor's credit, which some lenders like a lot and will price for. Under a management agreement the lender is looking at operating cash flow and will usually want a comfort letter with the manager and the right to replace them on foreclosure. Ask your lender which structure they're pricing before you sign either draft, and get the terms in writing rather than on a call, because the answer changes what the deal earns you.

If the master lease coverage is 1.27x, that means the operator keeps $1.1M of the $5.2M. Under the management agreement the operator takes 5 percent of $14.8M, which is $740K, plus incentive. So on today's numbers the management agreement is cheaper to you by a few hundred thousand and you keep everything above budget. Am I missing something, or is the whole premium you're paying in option A just for the certainty?

compass has it about right on the arithmetic and the missing piece is the downside. In option A the operator eats the first $1.1M of shortfall before your rent is at risk. In option B you eat it from dollar one. You're paying for that buffer and for the reporting simplicity, and whether it's worth $400K a year depends on how confident you are in the ramp.

If you're raising outside capital against this, the two structures produce very different stories for an investor. A master lease is easy to describe and easy to diligence. An operating position asks the investor to believe in the operator and in you. That doesn't tell you which is better for the asset, though it may tell you which one you can actually fund, and I'd work that out before the month runs out rather than after.