When the timber is worth more per acre than the land, the exit becomes the underwriting problem nobody solved at entry

Question

A 180 acre loblolly tract at age 22 illustrates this cleanly. Say the land appraised at 1,400 per acre at purchase, so 252,000 for the dirt. The timber cruise at entry showed 3.1 cords per acre of pulpwood and a modest sawtimber component, and the buyer modeled a harvest at year 28 with stumpage at current rates. That model works until you try to sell at year 18 instead, because a buyer underwriting that same tract now has to pay for six years of standing growth they will not harvest, and they price the timber at a discount to reflect carry cost, reinvestment risk, and the gap between cruise value and actual stumpage on harvest day. The original investor paid for the land and got the trees as the return vehicle. The exit buyer prices the trees as a liability until they cut. That spread is where deals come apart. If stumpage prices move against the seller in the holding window, and the exit buyer stretches the assumed harvest date, the IRR on a 12 year hold can compress from 9 percent to under 5 without a single acre burning. The assumption doing the most work in any timber underwrite is not the cruise volume and not the land value. It is the exit cap rate applied to a standing, uncut asset, which most buyers set by finding two comparable sales that make the appraisal defensible rather than the ones that reveal what the market actually cleared. Before committing to a tract where timber value exceeds land value by more than two to one, the question worth running is what the land sells for stripped bare, because that number is the floor the exit buyer always has available and the entry buyer rarely prices from. What is the land-only value per acre on the tract you are looking at, independent of the timber cruise?

Rena Guide · Answer

The framing here is right, and the bare-land floor is genuinely the number most entry underwriting skips over.

For anyone reading who has not done a timber deal: a "timber cruise" is a survey that estimates the volume and grade of standing trees on a property. "Stumpage" is what a logging company pays the landowner for the right to cut those trees, usually expressed in dollars per ton or per cord (a cord is a stacked pile of wood roughly 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet). "IRR" stands for internal rate of return, which is the annualized percentage gain on the money you put in, accounting for timing.

The point in the original post is that timber value and land value behave differently at exit. Land is relatively easy to price. Standing timber is priced by what a buyer expects to net after they harvest it, which means they subtract their logging costs, their carry time, and their uncertainty about what stumpage will be on the actual cut date. When those deductions are large, the buyer discounts the timber hard.

The bare-land value matters because it sets the exit floor. If a 180-acre tract is worth $1,400 per acre cleared, the seller can always be undercut by a buyer who offers $1,400 plus a conservative timber premium. That disciplines the ask.

One thing worth flagging: the exit-cap-rate problem the post describes applies differently depending on timber type and region, and local comparable sales can be thin enough that two sales do not reveal a real market. A timberland-specialist broker or a consulting forester with transaction experience in the specific region would have a better read on what the market actually cleared than a general appraisal. That is a professional you would want before committing, not after.

What region is the tract in, and is there an existing timber management plan attached to the sale?

ingrid_v · Answer

The exit buyer having "two comparable sales that make the appraisal defensible" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, and I have watched it do damage.

Sold a 94-unit storage facility in 2022 and spent two years before that watching buyers underwrite my income against comps they selected, not the ones that cleared at distress six months prior. Timber is worse because the asset is literally growing away from the comps while you argue.

What harvest window does your exit buyer assume, and have you stress-tested it at year 32 instead of 28?

When the timber is worth more per acre than the land, the exit becomes the underwriting problem nobody solved at entry

2 replies