The problem the current method creates
Deal by deal, a hidden cell changes the ranking. Brokers rebuild a workbook. Discount-rate cases live in a separate tab. Face rent becomes the headline because the rest of the file is too fragile to share.
How it works
From scattered terms to a shareable comparison without rebuilding the spreadsheet
How does the proposed workflow capture lease terms?
The proposed workflow captures each option’s rent schedule, CAM, tenant improvement allowance, free rent, and escalations, then places them on one cash-flow timeline so tenant-rep brokers can discount that stream to NPV at an explicit rate.
Broker inputs and lease inputs
Broker inputs are the measurement period, the discount rate the client can explain, and the labels that will appear on the client summary. Lease inputs are start rent, term, escalations, tenant improvement allowance, free rent, and CAM. Missing fields stay visible instead of disappearing into a hidden cell.
Term normalization and cash-flow generation
A thirty-six-month option and a sixty-month option cannot be ranked by adding the printed years. The workflow normalizes the shared occupancy window, then generates a cash-flow stream for each option so when cash moves is explicit.
TI, free rent, CAM, and escalations
Tenant improvement allowance is a timed cash event, not a brochure number. Free rent changes year-one occupancy cost and the later step-up base. CAM belongs in occupancy cost when the tenant pays it. Escalations change later periods and can flip a ranking when discounted.
Tenant improvement allowance is a timed cash event, not a brochure number. Free rent changes year-one occupancy cost and the later step-up base.
NPV, sensitivity, comparison, and client summary
NPV converts the cash-flow stream into today’s dollars. Sensitivity analysis keeps the rate visible so a ranking flip is not an artifact of one assumption. The comparison and the shareable client summary stay next to those cases.
Before
Each deal rebuilds a workbook. Discount-rate cases live in a separate tab, if they exist at all.
→
Proposed after
One comparison workspace. Cash-flow compare, NPV + sensitivity, and the client summary stay together.
| Input | Lease A | Lease B |
|---|---|---|
| Start rent | $42,000 | $39,000 |
| CAM | $8,400 | $9,100 |
| TI credit, year 1 | $18,000 | $12,000 |
| Free rent | 2 months | 1 month |
| Escalation | 3% / year | 5% / year |
| NPV @ 8% | $186,400 | $191,220 |
Illustrative sample — not a production screenshot.
Worked example
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE. Lease A starts at $42,000 with two months of free rent and $18,000 of TI. Lease B starts cheaper, escalates faster, and offers less TI. After discounting the cash-flow stream at 8%, Lease A’s illustrative NPV is lower.
| Period | Lease A net occupancy | Discounted @ 8% |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | $32,400after free rent and TI | $30,000 |
| Year 2 | $51,912 | $44,500 |
| Year 3 | $53,469 | $42,430 |
| Year 4 | $55,073 | $40,470 |
| Year 5 | $56,726 | $38,600 |
What the proposed product does
It keeps cash-flow, NPV, and sensitivity in one workspace and produces a shareable summary for tenant-rep conversations. Pricing hypotheses are $290 per year or $149 per deal. Payment is not collected.
What it does not do
It does not administer leases, run a CRM, produce ASC 842 entries, or give legal advice. It is not a finished product.
Limitations and objections
NPV does not capture every qualitative consideration. A lower NPV is not automatically the better occupancy choice. Separate emails still exist for legal review; this workflow does not replace counsel.
Positioning: this is a focused workflow, not a brokerage suite. Product visualization stays next to the steps. Benefits include a shareable client summary. Use cases are tenant-rep comparisons. Trust or disclosure: not a finished product, payment is not collected, not legal advice.
Why it matters
Deeper explanation of the proposed comparison workflow belongs in the comparison because face rent alone hides timing. How it works in practice: put the cash event on the occupancy-cost timeline, then discount. This is the next logical step after reading a definition.
Related concepts
Related concepts include occupancy cost, NPV, tenant improvement allowance, free rent, CAM, and rent escalations. Contextual CTA: request a validation pilot only after the numbers are explicit.
Common mistakes are listed on this page. Authority sources sit below. Internal links connect the hub, the comparison method, and early access.
Example
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE. The Lease A versus Lease B figures used across this site are educational samples, not customer results. They exist so the proposed comparison workflow can be seen beside rent, CAM, TI, free rent, and escalations instead of as an isolated slogan.
How it works
Capture the term. Place it on the cash-flow stream. Discount. Compare. Keep the assumption visible. That sequence is the product visualization of the proposed workflow, not a production screenshot.
A fuller reading of the proposed comparison workflow
Broker inputs and lease inputs are different jobs. The broker sets the window and the rate. The leases supply rent, CAM, TI, free rent, and escalations. Term normalization is the unglamorous step that prevents a short cheap deal from winning by omitting later years. Cash-flow generation is where incentives stop being slogans. NPV is the sum. Sensitivity is the honesty check. The client summary is the artifact the meeting can survive.
Tenant-rep brokers still have to verify the lease. This page does not replace counsel. It does not claim FASB, NAIOP, or BOMA endorsement. It uses those organizations as independent professional context so a citation-ready answer can name the entity, state the fact, and show the limitation.
If two options differ only by a brochure number, the comparison is unfinished. If they differ by when cash moves, the comparison is an NPV problem. If they differ by who pays operating expenses, the comparison is a structure problem. the proposed comparison workflow is one of those differences. The proposed focused workflow keeps those differences on one shareable client summary.
Pricing remains a hypothesis: $290 per year or $149 per deal. Payment is not collected. Willingness to pay is not proven. A serious owner can publish this page because the example is labeled, the sources are named, and the conversion path is honest.
See the offer, the resources hub, the comparison method, how it works, commercial lease NPV, and Request Pilot Access. The parent hub and the commercial homepage stay one click away.
Who is this not for
who is this not for: this workflow is not for landlords running a portfolio, not for property managers administering occupied buildings, and not for teams that need a full brokerage suite. It is also not for anyone who wants a finished product with checkout today.
Objections worth answering now
This is not a finished product. Payment is not collected on this site. A lower NPV is not automatically the better occupancy choice. Sample figures are illustrative and are not customer results.
Is this a finished product?
No. This is an early validation / pilot concept and is not generally available.
Is payment collected here?
No. Pricing hypotheses are $290 per year or $149 per deal. A selection indicates interest only.
Request a validation pilot
Pilot / early access. In validation. Not generally available. No payment is collected.