Slope illustrative model
What does an asset trade at, and why?
An illustration drawn by Slope, not data. The points are invented to show the idea; they are not transactions.
Five variables we examine when testing an asset's multiple range. Their importance depends on the asset, its evidence and the buyer's mandate.
The drivers of multiple
Five variables to test in the underwriting.
These are Slope’s analytical questions, not a measured explanation of transaction multiples. The bars and trend lines are illustrative; their direction and size do not establish a premium or discount. A conclusion requires the asset's evidence and relevant comparables.
Hotel revenue share
A hotel-led valuation premium is a hypothesis, not a result established by this illustration. Room revenue depends on occupancy, rates and cancellations. Any contracted-income claim needs identified lease or booking terms, including cancellation rights. Golf can include recurring memberships and contracted events. Examine the actual contract mix, margins and capital needs before comparing multiples.
ADR realisation versus the local hotel comp set
Does achieved ADR reflect a sustainable advantage after occupancy, seasonality and costs are considered? A premium rate alone does not establish a higher multiple or resilience in a downturn.
Member or repeat-play retention
How stable are member and repeat-play revenues, and on what renewal terms? Retention history informs underwriting alongside margins, pricing and the cost of retaining demand; it does not remove risk.
Land optionality
What permissions, infrastructure and funding support the residential, hotel or amenity scenario? Unbuilt optionality is conditional. Its value depends on supported costs, timing and the relevant buyer mandate, rather than land area alone.
Operator structure
What do the operating agreements permit, cost and require on a change of control? Branding alone does not make a contract easy to underwrite. For an owner-operated asset, establish management continuity and replacement costs before assuming a discount.
How we work with acquirers
Three engagements. Each scoped to the question you are actually asking.
Acquisition screen
For when you are deciding whether to pursue.
We assess the asset against the framework, state coverage and evidence gaps, flag material structural risks and recommend whether to investigate further under your mandate.
Deliverable
Six-page memo. Verdict in paragraph one. Score and structural flags in the body. An indicative range is included only where the agreed engagement includes it and the available evidence supports it.
Pre-bid assessment
For when you have decided to pursue and want to bid intelligently.
An acquisition pre-screen under the agreed scope. We explain the available evidence, material risks and unresolved assumptions. Where the engagement includes an indicative range, we state its evidence and limitations. A proposed programme is assessed separately.
Deliverable
The agreed assessment and a debrief on its evidence, assumptions and next decisions.
Portfolio coverage
For when you are looking at multiple assets per year.
Acquisition and portfolio assessments follow your mandate and agreed scope. We do not represent sellers.
Deliverable
Assessments under the agreed portfolio scope.
What you would actually receive
An illustrative assessment excerpt.
Below is an illustrative excerpt in the format of a Slope assessment. The asset, its figures and the comparable transactions it cites are illustrative.
A mature 18-hole golf resort with an integrated 40-key hotel, southern European leisure market. Illustrative asset and figures.
Verdict
The asset is a credible institutional candidate with a clear repositioning path. It is a mature 18-hole resort with an integrated 40-key hotel in an established southern European leisure market. Assumed normalised EBITDA is €2.4M on revenue of €9.1M. The hotel improvement case is a hypothesis requiring a review of occupancy, rates, costs and actual contracts. The score reflects a strong physical asset and a defensible location held back by reporting quality and an undermanaged hotel operation. We would advance this fictional case to full diligence to test whether the proposed operating changes are feasible and fundable.
Financial Quality61 / 100
Revenue is real and the demand base is stable. Three years of operating data show a resort that holds its topline through the shoulder seasons better than its local comp set. The weakness sits below the revenue line. The hotel is assumed to run a 38% gross operating margin against a fictional comparison band of 48% to 52%. The example assumes payroll contributes to that gap; diligence would need to test the comparison basis and distinguish structural costs from seasonal effects.
The reporting itself is a gating item. Management accounts are produced quarterly, not monthly, and the golf and hotel statements are only partially separated, which obscures where margin is actually lost. A buyer would need to reconcile the normalisation assumptions to source records and obtain monthly detail before relying on the improvement case.
Fictional indicative range
We assess enterprise value at €19.2M to €22.8M, with a working midpoint of €21M.
Method. The range is built on an EBITDA multiple of 8.0x to 9.5x applied to a normalised EBITDA of €2.4M. This fictional operating enterprise-value range excludes the unbuilt residential parcel; no additional land premium or other adjustment is added.
Fictional comparable transactions.Three invented integrated-resort examples are assigned 8.4x, 9.1x and 7.6x multiples. They illustrate the comparison format; they do not evidence the assumed 8.0x to 9.5x range or a market premium.
Sensitivity. Closing the hotel margin gap in the proposed operating scenario moves normalised EBITDA from €2.4M toward €3.1M. At a constant 8.5x, that moves modelled enterprise value from €20.4M to €26.35M, a €5.95M change before implementation costs. This conditional value change is not an investment return. The residential scenario remains outside both values.
Risk flag: information readiness
ElevatedEvidence. The data room is missing audited statutory accounts for the most recent year, the hotel management agreement, and the environmental report on the irrigation reservoir. The seller has described all three as available. None has been produced after two requests.
Mitigation. None of the three can be cleared on the assumed evidence. The recommended next step is to obtain and review the documents before relying on the case. Missing documents leave the related risks unresolved; delay alone does not establish their cause.
To engage
Direct contact. No funnel.
If you are looking at a specific asset and want a read, send us what you have. The teaser, a memo, the data room link. We will tell you whether the screen makes sense.
If you are looking at more than one or two assets a year, the portfolio engagement is sized to how much you actually look at.
If you want to know whether your existing thesis on an asset holds up, the pre-bid assessment will tell you.
A note on independence. When we have worked with a counterparty interested in an asset you are evaluating, you will know before the engagement begins. The disclosure is the product.