READ-ONLY EXAMPLE MEMO
54 Crease Ave — Underwriting Memo™
This memo is public and read-only. Sign in when you are ready to create your own deal and generate your own memo.
Underwriting Memo™
Underwriting Memo™ — 54 Crease Ave (Read-Only Demo)
54 Crease Ave, Victoria, BC · 4 units · Saanich
PROCEEDConfidence: HIGHBasis: SiteKillSwitch defaultGenerated: 2026-03-07 09:36 PST (America/Vancouver)
| Report ID | demo-54-crease-memo |
| Deal ID | demo-54-crease |
| SKU | investment_memo_v1 |
| Memo basis | SiteKillSwitch default |
| Purchase price | $900,000 |
| Units | 4 |
| Region | BC |
| Soft costs | 18.0% |
| Sale / unit | $1,150,000 |
Key Snapshot
Assessed on SiteKillSwitch default
Base margin
29.0%
Equity required
$708,983
Total cost
$2,835,930
Score
95
Deal Decision
PROCEED
Assessment Basis: SiteKillSwitch default
Confidence
HIGH
Margin Safety
Strong
Primary Risk
High break-even per unit
Profit Sensitivity
X-axis: sale price change · Y-axis: net profit ($)
Executive Summary
Assessment Basis: SiteKillSwitch default
Decision: PROCEED (HIGH confidence). Economics snapshot: base margin 35% · equity required $708,983 · total project cost $2,835,930. Break-even per unit ($708,983) remains the primary watch item for this assessed scenario (SiteKillSwitch default). Risk signal: LOW. Break-even per unit is high versus the assumed exit baseline, so exit pricing and cost discipline remain critical. Primary drivers were identified (3). Focus underwriting on the top driver set before committing to hard costs. Diligence: 4 checks were generated to de-risk key assumptions. Complete Gate 1 (zoning/yield + servicing sanity) before spending materially.
SiteKillSwitch default Profit Waterfall
Relative contribution by line item · values shown at right
Net Revenue
$4,370,000
Land Purchase
$900,000
Land Carry
$36,000
Net Profit
$1,534,070
SiteKillSwitch default Sensitivity Analysis
Assessment Basis: SiteKillSwitch default
Profit Curve
X-axis: sale price change · Y-axis: net profit ($)
| Sale Price Change | Net Profit | Margin |
|---|---|---|
| -10% | $1,097,070 | 27.9% |
| -5% | $1,325,070 | 31.8% |
| 0% | $1,534,070 | 35.1% |
| +5% | $1,762,070 | 38.3% |
| +10% | $1,971,070 | 41.0% |
A 5% decrease reduces profit by 14%.
Risk Assessment
Sale price risk
LOW
How quickly profit disappears when sale assumptions soften.
Cost overrun risk
LOW
Available margin buffer against contractor and escalation variance.
Timeline risk
LOW
Longer holds increase financing drag and delivery risk.
Investment View
Assessment Basis: SiteKillSwitch default
This memo is assessed on SiteKillSwitch default. The deal currently screens as PROCEED with high confidence, but decision quality remains highly dependent on revenue discipline and execution.
Proceed only if
- If zoning/yield changes (unit count), rerun immediately.
- If contractor budget differs materially from assumptions, rerun immediately.
- If exit comps soften materially, rerun with conservative exits.
Do not proceed if
- Zoning/yield outcome does not support the assumed unit count.
- Servicing or site constraints expand hard costs beyond assumptions.
- Exit comps / absorption soften materially versus underwriting.
Decision Confidence Layer
Decision: PROCEED (HIGH confidence). Economics snapshot: base margin 35% · equity required $708,983 · total project cost $2,835,930. Break-even per unit ($708,983) remains the primary watch item for this assessed scenario (SiteKillSwitch default). Risk signal: LOW. Break-even per unit is high versus the assumed exit baseline, so exit pricing and cost discipline remain critical. Primary drivers were identified (3). Focus underwriting on the top driver set before committing to hard costs. Diligence: 4 checks were generated to de-risk key assumptions. Complete Gate 1 (zoning/yield + servicing sanity) before spending materially.
Based on current assumptions, this memo reflects the sitekillswitch default basis. Generated 2026-03-07 09:36 PST (America/Vancouver). Refresh the memo whenever the deal record or latest screen changes materially.
Confidence Read
PROCEED / HIGH
At this stage, sitekillswitch default margin is 35%, equity required is about $708,983, total project cost is about $2,835,930, and break-even per unit is $708,983.
Assumption Visibility & Deal Audit
This memo reflects the assumptions captured when the latest screen was promoted into memo generation. Entered fields are shown separately from locked defaults and fields that still need confirmation.
High input confidence · Entered 4 · Defaults 2 · Confirm 1
Key Underwriting Assumptions
Purchase price
Entered$900,000
Units
Entered4
Region
EnteredBC
Finance rate
DefaultCarry proxy 4%
Selling costs
ConfirmNeeds confirmation
Soft costs
Entered18.0%
Contingency
Default5.0%
Audit Notes
Assumptions version
—
Screen / memo basis
Current memo basis: SiteKillSwitch default. Generated 2026-03-07 09:36 PST (America/Vancouver). This memo should be refreshed whenever the deal record or latest screen changes materially.
Default policy
When underwriting inputs are missing, SiteKillSwitch currently falls back to locked institutional defaults such as soft costs 18.0% and contingency 5.0%.
Investment Decision
Assessment Basis: SiteKillSwitch default
PROCEED (HIGH confidence)
PROCEED
Decision Rationale
- Selected scenario margin is 35%.
- Selected scenario equity required is $708,983.
- Selected scenario total project cost is $2,835,930.
- Screening score is 95/100.
Primary Drivers
- If zoning/yield changes (unit count), rerun immediately.
- If contractor budget differs materially from assumptions, rerun immediately.
- If exit comps soften materially, rerun with conservative exits.
Risk View
- Zoning/yield outcome does not support the assumed unit count.
- Servicing or site constraints expand hard costs beyond assumptions.
- Exit comps / absorption soften materially versus underwriting.
- Financing terms (rate, LTC) tighten beyond modeled assumptions.
- Timeline extends materially (permits, servicing, construction).
Model Outputs
Key underwriting calculations used in scoring.
SiteKillSwitch default
| Build area (assumed) | 4,600 ft² |
| Hard cost (per unit) | $385,250 |
| Hard cost ($/ft²) | $335/ft² |
| Hard costs (total) | — |
| Soft costs (total) | — |
| Soft costs (% of hard) | 18.0% |
| Contingency | — |
| Financing rate (assumed) | — |
| Carry / holding (est.) | — |
| Total project cost | $2,835,930 |
| Break-even / unit | $708,983 |
| Net Revenue | $4,370,000 |
| Profit (base) | $1,534,070 |
| Margin % (base) | 35% |
| ROI (Profit / Total Project Cost) | 54% |
| ROI (Profit / Cash Invested) | 2% |
| Equity multiple ((Cash + Profit) / Cash) | 3.16× |
| Approx IRR (annualized) | 216% |
| Equity required | $708,983 |
| Debt | $2,126,948 |
| Score | 95 |
| Score breakdown | Acq 30 · Margin 30 · Cap 20 · Density 15 |
Deal Risk Signals (Selected Scenario)
Simple underwriting flags based on the current model outputs.
✔
Margin meets typical threshold (≥15%).
✔
Profit-on-cost is healthy (≥20%).
✔
Break-even is below regional benchmark.
✔
Deal remains profitable at -5% sale price.
Development Budget
Cost composition as a share of total project cost.
Land Purchase
$900,000 (32%)
Land Carry
$36,000 (1%)
Margin Sensitivity
Sale price per unit sensitivity (costs held constant).
| Sale price / unit | Net Revenue | Profit | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,035,000 | $3,933,000 | $1,097,070 | 28% |
| $1,095,000 | $4,161,000 | $1,325,070 | 32% |
| $1,150,000 | $4,370,000 | $1,534,070 | 35% |
| $1,210,000 | $4,598,000 | $1,762,070 | 38% |
| $1,265,000 | $4,807,000 | $1,971,070 | 41% |
Scenarios
Revenue change versus the base case, and what that does to margin for this build.
| Scenario | Revenue vs Base | Margin |
|---|---|---|
| Base | 0% | 35% |
| Optimized | +5% | 38% |
| Downside | -5% | 32% |
Margin Waterfall
Net Revenue
$4,370,000
Land Purchase
$900,000
Land Carry
$36,000
Net Profit
$1,534,070
Capital Stack
Equity
$708,983 (25%)
Debt
$2,126,948 (75%)
Top Drivers
- Exit pricing support. — Comparable sale support is required to protect the margin buffer.
- Servicing assumptions remain a key underwriting sensitivity. — Offsite works can materially affect cost and schedule.
- Contractor budget alignment remains a key underwriting sensitivity. — Hard cost drift will compress the current margin quickly.
Diligence Checks
- Confirm zoning and achievable unit yield remains a key underwriting sensitivity.
- Validate contractor ROM construction budget remains a key underwriting sensitivity.
- Confirm servicing and frontage requirements remains a key underwriting sensitivity.
- Verify comparable exit pricing remains a key underwriting sensitivity.
Risk Register
| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| High break-even per unit | Downside sensitivity increases if exits soften | Validate conservative net pricing and preserve cost contingency. |
| Servicing + frontage unknowns | Could increase cost and delay approvals | Complete preliminary servicing scan and confirm frontage triggers. |
| Approvals + schedule risk | Carry grows if timeline slips | Validate realistic approvals path and contractor availability early. |
Sources & Evidence
Planning
- Zoning confirmation
- Unit yield proof / concept massing
- Permitting path + timeline
Civil
- Municipal fees + charges
- Servicing availability scan
- Frontage improvements scope
- Stormwater strategy viability
Commercial
- Contractor ROM budget
- Comparable sales pack
- Indicative financing terms
Underwriting Memo™ · SiteKillSwitch
Report ID: demo-54-crease-memo