quitting retwit anon (ex Industrial RE ANON) @YOCspread

@dylthorn Chevy half ton same.

@theficouple Absolute rage bait

@MillPrue lil man got my vote @js7 what say you

@Peter_Psathas Thanks. Now watch as all these big accounts that complain retwit is dead totally ignore it lol

Industrial acquisition diligence point that gets missed too often: Not all 'ESFR" buildings are equal. And unless you have had issues leasing to a specific tenant profile you wouldn't know it. For leasing and tenant suitability, especially in modern bulk industrial, the fire-protection question is not just: “What is the clear height?” or "What head type does it have?" It is: “What is the actual ceiling/roof deck height, what ESFR heads are installed, and what commodity/storage assumptions does the system support?” A building can be marketed as ESFR & 32’ clear and still have a sloped roof deck approaching 40’ AFF. That matters because the NFPA ESFR tables are driven by maximum ceiling/roof height, commodity classification, sprinkler K-factor, sprinkler orientation, design pressure, storage height, and rack/storage configuration. The distinction can be material. A K-17 ESFR system may be acceptable for Class I-IV commodities and cartoned nonexpanded Group A plastics at a given roof height, subject to the full design criteria. But that does not mean the same system works for exposed nonexpanded Group A plastics at the same height. Once you get into exposed plastics, taller deck heights, high-piled storage, or a different rack configuration, the answer can change quickly. The NFPA table may point you toward a larger K-factor head, different operating pressure, different storage assumptions, in-rack sprinklers, or a retrofit discussion that was never in the acquisition model. That is a very different leasing answer. A tenant may look like a routine warehouse/distribution user in a lease summary. But “distribution” is not a commodity classification. Their actual inventory profile may drive a very different fire-protection conclusion. This is where I think investment shops can protect themselves. The technical diligence function should be independent enough to give the investment committee an unfiltered answer. Not adversarial. Not bureaucratic. Independent. Market officers and acquisition teams are supposed to source deals, understand tenant demand, and create investment opportunities. That is their job. But they are also closest to the transaction and naturally motivated to get a good deal across the finish line. That is exactly why the technical seat matters. A senior development/construction professional who understands entitlements, utilities, slabs, roofs, paving, clear height, ESFR, dock packages, trailer parking, tenant improvements, closeout, warranties, and code constraints can catch issues that do not show up in the broker flyer or the first underwriting draft. How I would check this specific issue in diligence: Do not stop at the broker flyer or “32’ clear” line item. Pull the structural drawings and find the building section / clear-height section. Confirm the finished floor datum, usually shown as FF or FIN FLR = 100’-0”. Find the roof steel / deck elevations by grid line. On a sloped roof, there may be multiple elevations across the building. Determine the actual maximum roof/deck height above finished floor. That may be several feet higher than the advertised clear height. Pull the fire-protection drawings and hydraulic placard. Confirm the ESFR K-factor, head orientation, minimum operating pressure, design area, commodity classification, storage height, and whether the design assumes ceiling-only protection. Compare those facts to the applicable NFPA ESFR table for the actual commodity and storage arrangement. Ask whether the tenant’s real inventory profile matches the system design. Again: “warehouse/distribution” is not enough. If there is a mismatch, quantify the impact before signing the lease or closing the acquisition. This is not just a code detail. It can affect leasing velocity, tenant pool, TI cost, retrofit exposure, insurance review, and exit liquidity. My recommendation to institutional industrial investors: Have a real technical vertical inside the firm. Not just third-party reports. Not just a checklist. Not a development person who functionally reports to the market officer trying to get the deal approved. A senior technical leader should have a direct voice into investment committee, risk committee, or senior management. Their job is not to kill deals. Their job is to make sure the firm understands what it is actually buying. Sometimes the answer is, “No issue.” Sometimes it is, “Proceed, but escrow it.” Sometimes it is, “This affects the tenant pool.” Sometimes it is, “The capital plan is light.” And occasionally it is, “This is not the Class A spec we think it is.” That independent technical voice can save real money. For industrial investors, “Class A” should mean more than clear height, dock doors, truck court, and power. The physical asset needs to match the tenant demand being underwritten — and someone independent needs to verify it.

@credealjunkie Rents on that yard though 🤌

@donkeyDdevelops Wow

I’m not a therapist but it does seem like the hardest transition - to parent another adult. It’s a different type of relationship. Anecdotally and speaking of personal experiences I think a lot has to do with just being present in their lives but not trying to control it like they are still 8 years old. Idk could probably smoke a cigar and talk about this for hours. Theres a reason millennials love therapy I am convinced has mostly to do with emotionally absent parents.

@PatCarino Get a battery camera and place it up near the property line on a landscaping pole

@PatCarino Blink camera set up to help identify. Then throw it back at them

@ChadGriffiths Can he come sub into my IC presentation today

@SahilBloom Lost me at 4:30 AM to read classic books

@CohenSite They are not the same place

@PaulYacoubian Paging Cargill

@moseskagan I think the issue is not having a strategy to transform the building? There’s a difference in casting a broad net vs advanced manufacturing vs a small 3PL .. but yeah I think as with any investing, it’s a bet on growth. Theres no way around that.

@credealjunkie But I like my tire change shop

@nikitabier @gregisenberg Couple of these guys no offense don’t even talk about real estate anymore

@PatCarino Sad

@LPInvestor Got the wrong hat on I guess 😆

Industrial dev underwriting lesson: a yield-on-cost spread is not the same as a fat development profit. 6.5% YOC vs 5.5–5.75% market cap sounds compelling. But if a 6.0% exit only creates ~8–10% profit on cost — and FMV land basis is thinner — you’re underwriting execution, not cushion. Build vs buy only works if the new asset is meaningfully better.