Your documents disagree. Which number does the deal use?

Three documents from the same fictional deal

A seller package usually arrives as an offering memo written to market the property, a trailing statement of what it actually did, and a rent roll of what is billed today. These three are made up. They disagree the way real ones do.

Real packages often carry more than one operating period as well: a trailing statement, a partial-year update, a budget, a broker's pro forma. CREscope keeps each of those as its own period in the cap table rather than averaging them. This walkthrough uses a single T-12 to show the cross-document step, and the headline figures further down are the one set of numbers the deal carries into analysis and exports.

What CREscope does with them

Each document is read on its own, then the readings are compared. The card below is the one that renders on a real deal, running on the three documents above. It names the difference and picks no winner. It compares only facts that more than one kind of document reports, which on a package like this is the NOI and the site count. It puts each document's number under one common label and does not restate one document's accounting onto another's, so two figures can sit side by side here and still not be measuring the same thing. The two NOI readings below differ in more than size, and the next section is how. Collections, delinquency, park-owned against tenant-owned homes, and who pays for water are still yours to work, and the diligence checklist is where those live.

Where the two NOI figures come apart

CREscope names the disagreement. Taking it apart is the underwriting, and the arithmetic below is this page explaining its own fictional documents, not something the product generates. On this deal the whole gap is three lines.

Trailing NOI after reserves

$219,576

Management fee added back

$24,000

Deducted on the T-12, not in the memo's pro forma

Replacement reserves added back

$6,400

A capital allowance, so a cap rate can be quoted either way

Lot rent on 4 expansion sites

$20,160

Counted as sites in the memo, absent from the rent roll

Offering memo pro forma NOI

$270,136

Two of those lines are a basis difference, and both are arguable. A management fee and a replacement reserve can each sit above or below the line as long as the cap rate is quoted on the same basis. The third is a different kind of thing: lot rent on 4 sites that are not built, with nothing deducted for building them, is income the property cannot produce this year. That is the one worth a phone call, and only a rent roll, a utility map, and the permitted site count settle it.

Set the figures the deal will use

These two controls are the ones the card points at, in the places they live in the product. The memo's numbers are sitting here because extraction fills an empty field and the memo is normally the first file uploaded. Nothing has confirmed them.

What that choice is worth

From the figures the deal carries right now, not from what is sitting in the boxes above. Both controls write only when you save or confirm. The headline figures then wait on the review gate as well, which is the product keeping an unreviewed financial figure out of analysis, exports and the deal package. The pad count carries no such gate: whatever count is saved is already pricing the deal, reviewed or not. The capitalized amount divides the NOI by a stated 6.50% assumption. That rate is an input chosen for this fictional example, not a market quote, a benchmark, or a price anyone is recommending.

$777,846 of capitalized amount, on the same asking price, decided by which document a buyer took at face value.