I’m curious what people on this forum would advise as the “sweet spot” in park size?
There are a number of reasons a larger park would be better:
– Conduit lenders and investment purchasers want to deal in bigger parks, which pushes down the cost of financing.
– larger parks have more spaces over which to amortize fixed costs (manager salary, etc)
– parks that come with a significant number of park-owned homes may require full-time staff for maintenance (& turnarounds) & supervision of maintenance crew – larger park can afford better management, etc.
– easier to shop for & buy 1 big park than 2 small parks?
But then there are the counter-arguments. For the same amount of investment:
– two smaller parks might have better cash flow/cap rate than 1 bigger park
– two smaller parks, if within driving distance of each other, can provide some redundancy (if one manager goes on vacation or must be fired, other manager can cover & train replacement, if equipment breaks there is nearby backup, etc)
– two smaller parks may be less risky (w.r.t. disasters such as windstorms/tornadoes, or with respect to tenant and/or fill-up or economic problems)
– smaller parks probably don’t need full-time managers at all.
Assuming the money is available for 1 big or 2 small parks, what would you look for?
I suppose I’m thinking of 40-80 lots as my “small” and 120-250 as my “big” in this case. I know my “small” is big to some, but even small operators have big dreams and if the money were there, what would you want to purchase and why?