Property Intelligence™ · Featured analysis
Capital District four-unit
Schenectady, New York · 4-unit multifamily
- Purchase price
- $350,000
- Units
- 4
- Price per unit
- $87,500
- Modeled cap rate
- 12.8%
- Modeled cash-on-cash
- 28.4%
- Expense ratio
- 34.5%
Illustrative modeled analysis — not an active listing. Major systems and actual leases still require verification.
- Net operating income
- $44,800
- Debt coverage
- 1.95
- Monthly pre-tax cash flow
- $1,823
The property
Every field is editable, and every derived figure below recomputes as you change it.
Assumption set
Capital District four-unit (illustrative) · v1.0.0
Anonymized illustrative assumption set for a four-unit building in Schenectady, New York. Rents, expenses and financing terms are modeled planning assumptions, not an active listing and not verified property fact.
Reviewed by Scott Alvarez on 2026-08-15 · Status active
These are planning assumptions, not independently verified market fact. They are a starting point for this property, and every figure remains yours to replace with evidence.
Three scenarios
The same building under conservative, base and optimistic assumptions. The spread is the answer, not any single column.
| Measure | conservative | base | optimistic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net operating income | $34,719 | $44,800 | $51,302 |
| Annual debt service | $22,921 | $22,921 | $22,921 |
| Debt coverage | 1.51 | 1.95 | 2.24 |
| Monthly cash flow | $983 | $1,823 | $2,365 |
| Cash-on-cash | 15.3% | 28.4% | 36.9% |
| Cap rate | 9.9% | 12.8% | 14.7% |
| Expense ratio | 41.8% | 34.5% | 30.4% |
| Break-even rent per unit | $1,060 | $978 | $931 |
Operating statement
base scenario, annual.
- Gross scheduled income
- $72,000
- Vacancy loss
- -$3,600
- Effective gross income
- $68,400
- Taxes
- -$6,000
- Insurance
- -$3,200
- Water and sewer
- -$2,400
- Maintenance
- -$3,600
- Capital reserve
- -$2,400
- Management
- -$5,472
- Common utilities and other
- -$528
- Net operating income
- $44,800
- Debt service
- -$22,921
- Annual cash flow
- $21,879
Still requires verification
Nothing below asserts a defect. Each item is simply unverified until someone looks.
- Roof covering — age, layers and remaining life
- Heating plant — type, age and service history
- Electrical service — amperage, panel and branch wiring type
- Plumbing supply and waste lines — material and condition
- Water heater(s) — count, age and capacity per unit
- Windows and envelope — replacement history
- Separation of utilities — who pays what, by meter
- Certificate of occupancy and legal unit count
Evidence
How much of this analysis is established, figure by figure.
0 verified · 14 assumed · 0 unknown, across 14 material figures.
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached · Confirm against the current assessment record
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Illustrative assumption set — no source record attached
Derived from assumptions
Derived from assumptions
Derived from assumptions
Derived from assumptions
Derived from assumptions
- Verified
Supported by an identified source and reviewed where review is required.
- Assumed
A preset, user-entered or analyst-entered figure that is not independently established.
- Unknown
Missing, contradictory, stale or not yet established.
Professional read
Scott's professional read
- What stands out
- At $87,500 per unit, the modeled income supports a strong base return even after management, maintenance, vacancy, and a real capex reserve.
- What I would verify next
- Current leases, tenant payment history, owner-paid utilities, roof, heating systems, electrical service, plumbing, insurance quote, and the actual tax bill.
- What could change the outcome
- A major deferred system, lower collectible rent, unusual utility responsibility, or higher insurance can materially reduce the return.
- The next conversation I recommend
- Review the rent roll and trailing expenses before treating the 12.8% cap and 28.4% cash-on-cash as actionable.
Technology organizes the evidence. Scott reviews the decision.
Judgement from a licensed practitioner, held separately from the calculated figures above. It is decision support, not an appraisal, inspection, legal or tax advice.
Talk with Scott about this property