Three people asked us the same thing in the same week: what does a finished run actually look like? Not the description of it — the tabs, the numbers, the denominators, and the parts that went wrong. This page is that.
What a run returns
A run always returns a written answer in the room. About six runs in ten also produce an interactive report with the figures and where they came from. A workbook comes from two products, Value Opinion and Excels, and even there from most runs rather than all. A slide deck comes from BOV at Scale and runs about fifteen to twenty slides.
What a run does not return: a PDF export, which has happened three times in the product's history; a PowerPoint export, which has never happened; and a shareable report link — sharing is off product-wide, six links exist in all of history and two are revoked. If a Titleman link someone sent you does not open, that is why.
Most jobs land within the hour: a Value Opinion takes about 48 minutes at the median, and the slowest tenth run to 104 minutes.
And this page does not offer a download. The workbook below was built by hand by our team, not exported by a button in the product, and everyone who received it was told so. Better to say so than send a link that hands your spreadsheet something it cannot open.
One building, checked twice: Legend Oaks, 416 units, Tampa
Legend Oaks is a 416-unit apartment community at 4714 N Habana Ave, Tampa, FL 33614, owner of record Legend Oaks LLC per Hillsborough County assessment records. It is a public building — not a client, not a deal we transacted, and nobody gave us data on it.
Six tabs, one job each: Assumptions (every input in one place; yellow cells you change, green cells are sourced), Rent Roll (unit mix and rents, checked live against the 416 units of record), Cash Flow (five years, phasing loss-to-lease in over the first three), Debt Sizing (an LTV test and a DSCR test, the lower taken, the binding one named), Exit & Sensitivity (exit value, IRR, equity multiple, a sensitivity grid, four reality checks) and Sources (every number classified SOURCED, ASSUMED or COMPUTED).
Every output was recalculated independently — once from the delivered file with a separate formula engine, once from a second, separately written implementation of the same model — and matched to the cent both times.
| Line item | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 NOI | $3,681,558 | Year 1 of a 5-year cash flow |
| Year 5 NOI | $4,200,555 | Same basis, Year 5 |
| Operating expense ratio | 48.09% | Year 1, of effective gross income |
| Loan by LTV test | $41,617,613 | 65% of the derived price |
| Loan by DSCR test — this one binds | $39,862,003 | 1.25× coverage on Year 1 NOI |
| Equity required | $24,165,095 | Derived price less the binding loan |
| Loan balance at exit | $38,368,632 | 2 years interest-only, then amortising |
| Net sale proceeds | $30,240,437 | 6.00% exit cap, less sale costs and payoff |
| Equity multiple | 1.47× | 5-year hold |
| Levered IRR | 8.66% / 8.7% | Two recalculations, within rounding |
DSCR binding is the line to read twice: the cash flow, not the collateral value, limits the loan here, so the debt is smaller and the equity larger than a headline 65% LTV suggests.
The denominators, so no number stands bare: one property, one five-year cash flow, two independently written implementations agreeing on every line, and a 25-building Tampa set behind the peer figure. Against that set, Legend Oaks assesses at $84,639 per unit against a peer median of $163,708 — a 48.30% discount, computed here rather than quoted.
Address, unit count, owner of record and assessed value come from county records. Everything else is an assumption: every rent, the vacancy rate, every operating expense line, the growth rates and both cap rates. No rent roll or trailing-twelve operating statement for this property has been seen by us, and the Rent Roll tab says so in its own heading. Read it as a rigorously checked structure for underwriting Legend Oaks, not yet as underwriting of Legend Oaks.
The mistake, left in rather than quietly fixed
The first version of this model did not return 8.66%. It returned a 53% levered IRR, a 6.36× equity multiple and a 2.98× debt service coverage ratio. Those numbers were the error announcing itself.
The draft had defaulted the purchase price to the county-assessed value of $35.21M, convenient because it was already in the spreadsheet. A Florida assessed value is an administrative figure for calculating property tax: not a price anyone would pay, and unrelated to what the income supports. In the price cell it put the income side and the price side on two different bases, and the arithmetic connecting them faithfully reported the gap between those bases as investment return.
Three fixes, visible in the file rather than in a cover note. Price is now derived from Year 1 income at a stated 5.75% going-in cap rate, and the assessed value is a reference line the Sources tab says must never be used as a price. A peer-median comparison came off the exit tab: that median is a median of assessed values, the exit price is a market price, and comparing them is the same mismatch in a different outfit. And four automated checks were added, each firing on that class of error — yield on cost outside roughly 3.5–9%, an exit cap tighter than the going-in cap, coverage above 2×, and an operating expense ratio under 40%, implausibly low for Florida product once insurance is in.
A model that is wrong in the flattering direction does not look wrong. It looks like a good deal. That is why the checks live in the file. Overwrite the yellow cells with your own numbers and they run against those.
Two identical warehouses, and a rent gap nobody averages away
8212 and 8102 Woodland Center Blvd are both 39,155 square feet, on the same street, both 100% occupied for all of calendar 2025. They earn $13.56 and $9.83 per square foot: a 37.9% gap, $146,048 a year, between physical twins. A market-average rent for "Tampa industrial" describes neither.
Provenance, so the page is not read as more automated than it is: this comparison is published analysis by our own team working from free public filings, not the unedited output of a single product run. The same is true of the workbook above.
A broker opinion of value's income approach is two numbers and a judgement — the subject's NOI, filed monthly and public; a comparable set from the same public source; and a cap rate, the one input in no filing anywhere. Moving the cap rate across a plausible two-point band swings the subject by $2.21M. The income gap between the twins is worth $2.09M at 7%. The number nobody can source and the number anybody can verify are the same size.
That work published its own correction: an earlier pass across 45 trusts found zero Hillsborough industrial comparables, and the full-scale pass found a usable set. The correction is printed on the same page as the answer rather than fixed quietly behind it. A further trap is printed there too: a building whose filings show blank or $0.00 income has not reported, which is not the same as earning nothing, and treating the two alike is how a comparable set quietly acquires a floor of zeros.
What we will not claim
We do not pull live listing cards linked to real advertisements; it is the most common wall in the product. The analysis does not apply your jurisdiction's tax, tenure or measurement rules — in any country, today. In the United States we cover 42 states and nine not at all; Florida and Texas have a full cadastral sweep, several large states a handful of named counties, and Texas discloses no sale prices. Our output is an opinion of value, never an appraisal.
Send us a deal you have already underwritten, with your own numbers, and this is the shape of what comes back. Where we disagree with you, you will be able to see why.