A fair price both sides can explain

Balanced inputs: We use facts that are sourced, dated, and unitized. Assumptions are consistent across the report and cross-checked against market evidence. Outliers are flagged, not quietly averaged in. If a number changes upstream, the downstream

Property first: We start with the asset as designed and the rents it can command today, not a pro forma target. Site, program, achievable rents, and operating costs drive the range. An approach output cannot leapfrog weak evidence. Strong evidence can justify a higher pos

Market anchored: We reference current comparable trades, prevailing cap rates, per-door pricing, and the cost of debt. Each data point has a source and a date so readers can judge freshness. Stale or non-comparable data is excluded. The market view info

Shared fairness: Both sides should be able to explain the number in a few sentences. Steps are reproducible from inputs to final output, with no hidden tweaks. If we override an approach, we say what we changed and why. The same logic applies

Durable value: We test how much the conclusion moves under reasonable changes. Cap rate up or down, weight shifts, and small rent swings are shown. The report highlights what would materially raise or lower value and points to the ev

Data with judgment: We prefer data, but a new development has gaps. Where inputs are thin, we use conservative ranges and state the rationale. We mark what would confirm the estimate. No false precision, no unexplained plugs.

Transparent and repeatable: Inputs are visible, formulas are standard, totals reconcile. The executive summary pulls directly from the approach pages. Version, preparer, and sources create an audit trail. A reader can rebuild the result in a

This report shows exactly how these principles are applied, step by step

The table links each principle to the proof we show and where to find it. Use it as a checklist while you review. If something is missing in a live report, we flag the gap and note the impact.

What this gives you. A traceable valuation with sources, consistent approaches, and one reconciled result. You can verify inputs, rerun the math, and see where judgment was used. Fair, explainable, repeatable.

We value using a simple waterfall. We profile the asset, read today's market, set a fair range, then run approaches to plot a point inside that range. That point drives the concluded value.

Asset. Evidence comes from the scheme as designed. Location and access, home types and specification, achievable rents and lease-up pace, operating costs, and the management plan. Cadence's 260-home program and stabilised $5.62M NOI set the baseline against peers.

Market. We look at the debt climate and the cap rate trend, recent comparable trades, and macro and cost of capital. Sun Belt in-migration and institutional demand for stabilised build-to-rent shift the baseline to match current pricing.

Range. This bracket is what a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Approach outputs must sit inside it. If one lands outside, we explain it and constrain it.

Approaches

Direct capitalisation divides stabilised NOI by a market exit cap rate.

Yield-on-cost spread measures the gap between development yield and exit cap.

Sales comparison references recent comparable trades on a per-door basis.

Discounted cash flow discounts the five-year levered cash flow to exit.

Cost approach compares total development cost with stabilised value to show value created.

Scenario analysis weights downside, base, and upside cases.

Result. Weighted result = the sum of each approach value times its weight = the concluded value.

A valuation sits inside a range that a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Two readings set that range: the asset profile, which is internal evidence of income quality, and the market band, which is external conditions in the

The table below maps each asset signal to what a weaker, neutral, or stronger reading looks like in practice. The strongest cluster of signals sets the profile.

The table below maps each market signal to what an unfavorable, neutral, or favorable reading looks like in practice. We anchor the band to the strongest cluster of signals.

After defining the range of value, we apply six valuation methods to triangulate where within that range Cadence sits. These methods are weighted by stage: earlier stages weight internal methods more heavily, later stages weight external and forecasted methods.

We have identified that Cadence stage of business fits into Band 4 of Stabilised round.

Giving it a value of $100M - $125M

The asset has a stabilised income base, strong Sun Belt demand, and a durable operating profile. Net operating income reaches $5.62M at stabilisation on a 6.55% yield on cost, with 260 homes leased to roughly 94% occupancy. What the plan delivers is core income, not a turnaround: horizontal work, phased vertical delivery, lease-up, and a refinance into permanent debt. The asset sits at the intersection of family-sized rental demand that new supply cannot easily meet and a cost basis well below stabilised value.

The value is stabilised NOI of $5.62M divided by the 5.0% exit cap. Each driver below is scored to confirm the income supporting that value, and its assigned value is its share of the $112.4M total.

The base value uses the midpoint of the value band. The value of a point is the delta between the low and high of the band divided by the total number of points (48). Per-risk scores aggregate to a single adjustment applied to the base.

Below are the three comparable communities. Each should fall within the region, product type, and quality identified above to be a fair comparison for this approach.

Saguaro Trails

A 312-home build-to-rent community in the East Valley of Phoenix, delivered in 2023 by a national developer. Detached cottages and townhomes around an amenity core. Traded to an institutional buyer in 2024 at roughly $118M, about $378k per door.

Capital Raised: $118.0MDate Raised: Mar-24

https://www.rebusinessonline.com/east-valley-btr-community-trade

Mesa Commons

A 244-home townhome-for-rent community in Mesa, completed in 2022. Class A finishes, attached garages, shared pool and clubhouse. Sold in 2023 to a core fund at about $91M, close to $373k per door, at a 4.9% cap.

Capital Raised: $91.0MDate Raised: Sep-23

https://www.bisnow.com/phoenix/news/multifamily/mesa-btr-sale

Cactus Ridge

A 198-home detached rental community in Chandler, delivered 2023. Yards and two-car garages, desert-modern design. Traded in 2024 at roughly $82M, about $414k per door, reflecting a premium for detached product.

Capital Raised: $82.0MDate Raised: Jun-24

https://www.rejournals.com/chandler-detached-btr-sale

Weighted factor scores and comparable per-door inputs produce the multiplier and adjusted value.

Three comparable stage exits in Band 4 are adjusted for the probability of Cadence reaching that scale, weighted by representativeness, then converted to today’s pre-money using the required return multiple.

Total development cost is built from land, hard costs, soft costs, financing and reserves. Set against the stabilised value the finished asset supports, the difference is the value the development creates.

Upside, base, and downside cases are given probabilities; their weighted average is the value.

Higher rent growth and a tighter exit cap lift stabilised cash flow and value. The build below discounts the upside cash flow to a value.

Slower lease-up, softer rent, and a higher exit cap lower cash flow and value. The build below discounts the downside cash flow to a value.

This document has been prepared for the purposes stated herein and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. This document provides a summary of the work undertaken by Top Tier Advisory and unless required by law, this document should not be provided to any third party without our prior written consent. In no event, regardless of whether consent has been provided, shall we assume any responsibility to any third party to which this document is disclosed or otherwise made available.

This document was prepared exclusively for internal use as at the date hereof and does not carry any right of publication or disclosure, in whole or in part, to any other party. This document is for discussion purposes only and is incomplete without reference to, and should be viewed solely in conjunction with, the oral briefing provided by the representatives of Top Tier Advisory.

The information provided in this document is based solely upon financial and non-financial information provided.

Whilst our work has involved a benchmark analysis, our engagement does not include either an audit or a review in accordance with International Standards on Auditing of the information used in the preparation of this valuation report. Accordingly, we assume no responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information used in the preparation of this report.

Budgets and forecasts relate to future events and are based on assumptions that may not remain valid for the whole or part of the relevant period. Consequently this information cannot be relied upon to the same

extent as that derived from audited accounts for completed accounting periods. We express no opinion as to how closely the actual results will correspond to those forecasts used in this presentation.

Market conditions and volatility of such markets make valuation exercises, of both company cash flows and financial instruments, extremely challenging and have created a significant potential range of assumptions

on risk-free rate, equity market risk premium and debt spreads. In addition, theoretical assumptions may not reflect reality. Subjectivity over key inputs to the cost of capital and capital and operating expenditure

assumptions, as well as underlying concerns about the impact of the economic upturns and/or downturn on the financial forecasts increases the complexity of the valuation analysis.

The benchmarking of companies, businesses and related cash flows is not a precise science and the conclusions arrived at in many cases will, of necessity, be subjective and dependent on the exercise of individual

Judgement as well as publicly available information to a certain extent. There is therefore no indisputable single value and we normally express the value as falling within a range at a point in time. Whilst we consider our benchmarks to be both reasonable and defensible based on the information available to us, others may place a different value on the benchmarks.