Today's opportunity takes us to San Marcos, Texas, where three leased office condominium units at 1920 Corporate Drive are being marketed together for $1.3 million. The package contains 3,863 square feet across three units. Suite A104 contains 1,920 square feet and is offered at $660,000. Suite A101 contains 988 square feet at $320,000, while Suite B205 contains 955 square feet at $320,000. The broker advertises a 6.29% cap rate and describes all three units as leased, with rents below market. The location provides access to Interstate 35, the Hays County Government Center, and Texas State University. The units are also part of a professionally managed condominium association. At first glance, this appears to offer a combination of existing income and future rent growth without requiring ownership of an entire office building. But that structure introduces questions we should address before making an offer. The first is the quality of the existing income. At the $1.3 million asking price, the advertised 6.29% cap rate implies approximately $81,770 in annual NOI. That figure is derived from the marketing information and has not been verified against actual operating statements. We need the current rent roll, executed leases, collection history, and a detailed expense schedule before accepting it as sustainable. The second issue is rent growth. The broker describes current rents as below market, but the opportunity depends on when the existing leases expire, what renewal rights tenants hold, and whether comparable office space supports higher rates. A rent increase that cannot be implemented for several years has a different present value from one that can be achieved at the next renewal. The third issue is the condominium association. Unlike a standalone building, ownership of these units comes with shared governance and financial obligations. Association dues, reserve funding, special assessments, insurance arrangements, and maintenance responsibilities could materially influence the investment.

Today's acquisition opportunity is an 18,172-square-foot industrial warehouse at 602 Avenue B in Moody, Texas, offered for $950,000. The building was constructed in 1986 and sits on approximately 0.76 acres. Its advertised features include a dock-high loading area, two grade-level doors, an insulated warehouse, approximately 1,595 square feet of office space, and a reported 22-foot clear height. At approximately $52.28 per square foot, the purchase price may initially appear attractive for a buyer seeking an industrial property in Central Texas. But there are several important questions we need to answer before establishing a valuation. The public listing does not provide verified NOI or an executed tenant lease. Without that information, we cannot determine whether the building currently generates income or what it might realistically produce under a new ownership structure. The listing also describes a 20-year deed restriction prohibiting the sale or distribution of agricultural chemicals, seed, or fertilizer. That restriction could be relatively unimportant for some users but significant for others, depending on local industrial demand. We would need to examine the exact restriction language and determine how it affects the pool of potential tenants. Now consider the income required to support the asking price. At a $950,000 purchase price, an 8% unleveraged yield requires $76,000 in annual NOI. A 9% yield requires $85,500. Those figures are underwriting thresholds rather than reported property performance. If we assume 60% senior financing at 8% interest with a 20-year amortization schedule, annual debt service would be approximately $57,213. At $76,000 in NOI, debt service coverage would be approximately 1.33. That may sound manageable, but we still need to account for repairs, vacancy, leasing commissions, tenant improvements, and capital reserves. An illustrative tenant improvement allowance of $10 per square foot across the entire building would require approximately $181,720. Even if actual improvements are substantially lower, the example demonstrates why total acquisition cost matters more than the purchase price alone.

Today's acquisition opportunity is an 18,172-square-foot industrial warehouse at 602 Avenue B in Moody, Texas, offered for $950,000. The building was constructed in 1986 and sits on approximately 0.76 acres. Its advertised features include a dock-high loading area, two grade-level doors, an insulated warehouse, approximately 1,595 square feet of office space, and a reported 22-foot clear height. At approximately $52.28 per square foot, the purchase price may initially appear attractive for a buyer seeking an industrial property in Central Texas. But there are several important questions we need to answer before establishing a valuation. The public listing does not provide verified NOI or an executed tenant lease. Without that information, we cannot determine whether the building currently generates income or what it might realistically produce under a new ownership structure. The listing also describes a 20-year deed restriction prohibiting the sale or distribution of agricultural chemicals, seed, or fertilizer. That restriction could be relatively unimportant for some users but significant for others, depending on local industrial demand. We would need to examine the exact restriction language and determine how it affects the pool of potential tenants. Now consider the income required to support the asking price. At a $950,000 purchase price, an 8% unleveraged yield requires $76,000 in annual NOI. A 9% yield requires $85,500. Those figures are underwriting thresholds rather than reported property performance. If we assume 60% senior financing at 8% interest with a 20-year amortization schedule, annual debt service would be approximately $57,213. At $76,000 in NOI, debt service coverage would be approximately 1.33. That may sound manageable, but we still need to account for repairs, vacancy, leasing commissions, tenant improvements, and capital reserves. An illustrative tenant improvement allowance of $10 per square foot across the entire building would require approximately $181,720. Even if actual improvements are substantially lower, the example demonstrates why total acquisition cost matters more than the purchase price alone.

Today's acquisition opportunity is a three-property self-storage portfolio in Corpus Christi, Texas, containing 869 units and 123,950 net rentable square feet. The facilities have reportedly been family owned and operated for decades. The marketing describes limited advertising, minimal revenue management, and approximately 78% physical occupancy. Those characteristics suggest a potentially attractive operational improvement opportunity. A new owner might introduce more disciplined pricing, modern management software, stronger digital marketing, and a systematic approach to collections and tenant retention. But the acquisition also illustrates why we should distinguish between a business with improvement potential and a business whose purchase price already assumes those improvements will happen. The first issue is pricing. Crexi identifies a $6.8 million asking price, while the LoopNet narrative references $6.25 million. The difference is $550,000, and the broker needs to confirm whether these figures reflect a price adjustment, different package terms, or outdated marketing. The second issue is the financial presentation. Crexi reports $418,103 in pro forma NOI. At $6.8 million, that represents a 6.15% pro forma yield, compared with 6.69% at $6.25 million. Neither calculation tells us what the business is earning today. The third issue is occupancy. With 78% physical occupancy, there may be room to lease additional units. However, we need to understand the existing unit mix, achieved rental rates, concessions, delinquency, and historical occupancy trends before estimating the economic benefit. A facility can improve its physical occupancy while producing disappointing financial results if new tenants enter at deeply discounted rates or operating expenses increase faster than collections. The portfolio also contains older buildings and improvements that require careful physical diligence. Insurance, roof condition, doors, drainage, paving, climate-control systems, and security infrastructure could materially influence the capital budget.

Today's deal is a different kind of car wash acquisition. We're not evaluating how many vehicles the tunnel processes or whether we can improve membership conversion as the new operator. We're evaluating the real estate beneath an existing car wash business and the reliability of the rent that business has promised to pay. The publicly marketed Mammoth Car Wash at 1300 E Stan Schlueter Loop in Killeen, Texas, is offered at $5,728,082. The listing reports a 4,826 square foot building on approximately 1.21 acres, built in 2018. It advertises a 20 year triple net lease commencing November 5, 2024, current annual rent of $343,685, and 2% annual increases. The marketed cap rate is 6%. That looks attractive if the tenant performs. With a triple net lease, the tenant is generally expected to bear many property costs, although the executed documents control. The landlord is not hiring wash attendants, managing chemical costs, or optimizing wash packages. But the landlord has concentrated the investment's income in one tenant, one property, and one specialized use. The listing also advertises a corporate guarantee from Mammoth Holdings. That may be important, but we should verify the actual guarantor, its legal identity, financial strength, and the enforceability of the guarantee. The broader platform is now publicly identified as MOJO Family of Brands, formerly Mammoth Holdings, making it especially important to confirm exactly which entity signed the lease and guarantee. A brand name is not a substitute for a credit file. Let's run the financing. At 60% senior debt, 7.5% interest, and 25 year amortization, debt service would be about $308,322 per year. Against the advertised rent, coverage would be only 1.11, before any unreimbursed landlord costs. A lender requiring 1.25 coverage would support approximately $3.06 million of debt under those assumptions, about 53.5% of the asking price. Now consider the valuation. At a 6% cap rate, the advertised rent supports the asking price. At a 6.5% required yield, the same income indicates approximately $5.29 million. At 7%, it indicates about $4.91 million. Those are sensitivities, not appraisals or claims about comparable market cap rates.