A company with investments in a real estate investment vehicle needed a clear and actionable view on the performance of its investment and, above all, a robust estimate of the value that should be reflected under management aligned with best practices. The challenge was not to “look at a number,” but to understand what had happened in the portfolio, how it had been managed, and what real implications it had for the final economic value.

Our work was structured as a complete technical analysis of the investment project: we reviewed the investment history, the risk profile, the level of investment experience, and the consistency between objectives and results. From there, we also studied the documentation and communications of the product to ensure that the management approach, risks, and expectations were well-traced within the overall diagnosis.

The core of the assignment was to evaluate how the real estate portfolio was being operated: we analyzed management explanations, expense structure, revenue dynamics, asset exploitation, financial decisions, and their impact on the evolution of the net asset value. This approach made it possible to separate the cyclical from the structural and to accurately detect the factors that were really pushing the value in one direction or another.

In addition, we contrasted the management of the vehicle with that of a comparable real estate fund that shared elements of governance and operation, to objectively measure whether the execution and treatment of investors was consistent between both structures. The analysis showed that the management had been largely articulated jointly and coordinated in key aspects, which reinforced the need for a rigorous technical comparison.

To convert that diagnosis into a value conclusion defensible at the business level, we applied a solid methodology: we estimated the final value “under proper management” using five complementary approaches (financial capitalization of the investment effort, reference to the behavior of the real estate market, adjustment for cost items not explained by the operation, matching with liquidation criteria of the comparable fund, and contrast with conditions observed in another equivalent vehicle). The final result was determined as the average of the five methods, providing stability, traceability, and a balanced reading.

Thanks to this approach, the company obtained a clear, consistent, and actionable final valuation, backed by quantitative analysis and market contrast, and accompanied by useful conclusions for decision-making: from how to interpret the evolution of the value to what management levers explain the divergence between expectations and performance. In short: a work where martinsdelima contributed deep diagnosis, robust methodology, and a solid value conclusion, ready to be used in internal governance and strategic planning.