News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2008, 06:55:09 PM »
I remember a Bob Huntley quote from a few years back, about the guy who was asked how he made his small fortune:
"I had a large fortune, then I invested in golf".

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2008, 07:01:38 PM »
Mike:

I would be surprised if the industry-wide ROI for developing a new golf course isn't a negative number.

I think you meant to say: I wouldn't be surprised

To believe this you must also think that there are a lot of really stupid rich folks out there.  If this is the reality of the industry, why would anyone get into gca and course management?  How would a mortgage be orginated?  Off the top of my head, I can think of at least five people who've done very well as owners and operators.  

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2008, 07:21:04 PM »
Chip:

The primary reason for a negative ROI is people getting into a new business and spending a lot of money on something they don't really understand.


Lou:

I'm not saying it's inevitable that a golf course developer will lose money -- some do great, because they know what they are doing.  But my guess is that the number of ill-conceived projects out there exceeds the number of good ones.  Look around northern Michigan -- how many of these courses do you think have a decent ROI?

Matt Varney

Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2008, 07:37:57 PM »
Tom,

This is a great point you make.  This always happens when business professionals that dream of getting together with a group of close friends pull together to build a private golf club.  If they don't have good advisors especially people they can trust that have an initimate knowledge of the golf industry and course construction they end up in trouble.

I have seen this happen over and over again - you read an article about someone spending $20M on just a golf course and I just shake my head saying to myself "what are they thinking?"

Projects fail because they were never planned properly or the vision from the start was all wrong so they start then tear up the plan and then start again then do something else different and unless the golf course is really good they end up not making money and selling out with a bad taste in their mouth about golf courses.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2008, 08:05:58 PM »
Chip:

The primary reason for a negative ROI is people getting into a new business and spending a lot of money on something they don't really understand.


Lou:

I'm not saying it's inevitable that a golf course developer will lose money -- some do great, because they know what they are doing.  But my guess is that the number of ill-conceived projects out there exceeds the number of good ones.  Look around northern Michigan -- how many of these courses do you think have a decent ROI?

Tom,

I know two developers in Texas who did fabulously well on two top of the market courses, one golf only and the other with a residential component.  They spared no expense, but apparently knew their markets well AND built in a state where, for whatever reasons, people and businesses keep moving to.

Coincidentally, I had a conversation today with a guy who has great credentials on the golf operations side that is looking for an ownership opportunity in a middle market property.  He is talking with a real estate professional who is evaluating similar investments and they specifically discussed the Michigan market.  Apparently, there are some really good asset buys up there (purchase price as a % of replacement cost), but the numbers don't work because one is always fighting the decline of Michigan's high tax/high cost economy.

For some reason, this brought to mind a conversation I had with the pro at Crystal Downs last fall.  In response to my delicate inquiry reqarding membership, he told me straight out that I had a near zero chance of becoming a member.   Who knows, if things keep heading south, we might one day become neighbors!

« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 08:43:00 PM by Lou_Duran »

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2008, 12:11:00 AM »
Chip:

The primary reason for a negative ROI is people getting into a new business and spending a lot of money on something they don't really understand.


Tom-

Is there ONE specific aspect where you see people make mistakes over and over and over again?

- Unrealistically low budgets (land, maintenance, operations, marketing)?
- Aggressive membership targets?
- etc..

Chip-

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2008, 03:34:01 AM »
The UK failure rate was 87% for new golf courses since 1979. (First developer lost money) 90% of those failed because of clubhouse overspend, most golf courses would have been built for between £500,000 and £1,000,000.
I've done 10 UK courses ALL have done well, you cant do everything day one, at the start let the car parks be gravel, maybe portacabins at the start, one of the biggest mistakes developers make is spending their money in 'silly areas'..you join a golf course to pay golf not to sit in a fancy car park or have a luxury club entrance... if you look at the sums just for golf it adds up okay, but its barely double digit % returns.
Talking about historical return, shares in our company started at £0.05p back in 1996. It would take a bid of in excess off £1.00 (20 times initial investment) to take the company over. So you can make money
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Ian Andrew

Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2008, 07:47:17 AM »
I'll give you one example that's a little different.

Angus Glen - north of Toronto - was built for around 4 million. The clubhouse was in the range of 4-5 million. The family owned the property and built the course with cash. They had made back everything they spent on the course after 2.5 years. That means the clubhouse was paid for in another 3 since rounds and price did not change.

It's all relative to how much you have to borrow, what you can charge and the terms of your financing. Some modest public models work just fine - excessive models must be a home run or the end up for sale very quickly.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2008, 07:49:58 AM »
Adrian:

I understand what you're saying, but the "gravel car park" approach will not work in many parts of the USA.  (I doubt it would work in the suburbs of London, either.)  People's expectations are just too high.


Chip:

Costs are certainly a factor, but honestly I think most people miss the number by just as big a margin on the revenue side. 

For example, some of the pro formas I used to see for courses in northern Michigan assumed 20,000 rounds times $75 per round.  Well, you have to have a warm spring and an early fall and be very popular to get to 20,000 rounds up here.  Even if you do, you'll have to discount heavily in the spring and fall, and group bookings will want you to give them a deal.  So, that projected $1.5 million in revenue winds up being 15,500 rounds times average $55 green fee = $850,000.  It gets even worse in later years when the spreadsheet kept assuming 20,000 rounds and 5% increases in green fees ... plus nobody does their 20,000 rounds in year one.

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2008, 08:21:18 AM »
So it seems the moral of the story is:

1) Don't over spend or spend on frivolous things that ARE in your control.



And

2) Don't make overly rosy revenue/rounds/rate projections that ARE NOT in your control. 

I assume most people make those rosy projections because they either really believe their golf course is going be the next Pebble Beach OR they they think that only the rosiest of projections will attract capital and/or potential membership.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2008, 08:38:44 AM »
This question comes up every so often and I have posted some generalized (but based on real world examples of my own courses) budgets over the year.

The fact is, for most of history, golf courses can't cover their construction costs very well.  Or at least, they can cover two or three of four between land cost, construction cost, operating cost and profit.

Thats why so many courses are built either on land already owned, and by housing developers who pay for construction to increase lot sales.  If the land and construction costs are taken care of, courses do quite nicely covering operations cost, and can turn a profit.

The math isn't that hard:

Land Cost (assume 0)
Construction Debt - $80 per $1000 on $8-$9M - $$640,000-720,000 per year (will vary)
Maintenance Costs ($400k low-$1,200 High)
Pro Shop, etc. ($400k low-$800K High)
Profit at 10%-20% (on $8M) $800,000-1,600,000)

If construction costs are paid for, then revenues of $800K-$2Mil might break even, meaning 20K rounds at $40 per head to 30K rounds at $70 per head.  Remember, there are range, F and B and nominal merchandise sales in addition to green fees, which probably average $7-$15  a player, and of cousre, cart fees (with 60% average use at $15 per player, averaging $9 per player).  So, if you can get $55 greens fees, you might actually get $70 or more per head.....

I wonder if golf courses are going to follow the lead of airlines and start charging to check your bag at the curb to increase revenues?

For a few brief periods of history, like the 1920's and the 1990's stand alone courses worked, between the demand and fees that could be charged.  For the top end (which is a shrinking, but still existant part of the market, the Pac Dunes, or even Cowboys in DFW on a regional basis) will still do quite well. 

It stands to reason that high end courses worked best, because it doesn't take that much more to build something high end and operate it, and revenue does go up quickly if you can generate $150 per round vs $35.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 08:48:31 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2008, 09:38:58 AM »
I typed somehting on this yesterday, but it never made it onto the board.

Most people entering the the golf business are getting in to be in the sports business, not golf.  The $2-$3 million dollar equity investment to break into and own 100% of a sporting venue (golf course) would get you maybe 1% ownership of the name brand sports franchises like the NY Yankees or Manchester United (if fractional ownership were available).  The barrier to entry in golf  is also low - put together a team of investors and a developemnt team, including a number cruncher and 5-8 years later you have your project ready to return its 1st dollar to the investors (after design, permitting, construction and grow-in).  At this point the intial investors have written checks for 5-8 years and have had no return on their equity and have signed personally for the debt borrowed to finish the project.....what a great business model....

Jeff pretty much hit the numbers above on what it takes to break even...30,000 rounds at about $55-$60 per round here back East - profit is what is left over....F&B reveneue is a net 10% of sales if you do everything correctly, you can actually lose money if inefficient or have "shrinkage".

Ian used an example where a family client of his invested $8-$9 million dollars to build a course and chlubhouse and have their equity returned to them in 5.5-6 years....when you factor in the the time value of the equity investment (had they bought a CD and kept the money risk-free), their investment was closer to $12-$13 million, due to the time value of money....this group will eventually get a pretty good ROI if the market continues to be good and they have little risk of losing the project as they are not overleveraged, but there are much safer places offering better rates of return to place this much cash than in a golf course project.



Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2008, 09:52:45 AM »
This thread reminds me of three points I make in teaching about real estate lending:

A joint venture is a structure by which the party with the  money and the party with the experience trade places.

The definition of "guarantor" is a fool with a pen in his hand.

Folks who are in the feasibility study business would quickly go out of business if they said a project wasn't feasible.

Mike

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2008, 10:51:16 AM »
Mike H,

I have several feasibility studies in my files.  Not one says it ain't feasible, but a few say its feasible "if" they solve a few problems.  Sort of like the secret to being a concierge at a fancy hotel - you never say yes and you never say no.  You say, "Yes, if."

One reads all the way through saying glowing stuff.  Only in the last section do they mention that there is no irrigation source and virtually no chance of getting one.  The opening page of the report had some quote about building foundations under sand castles, which hints at the writers opinion of the project.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2008, 11:21:53 AM »
I'm looking for a range of actual realizied historical returns.

If Johnny invests in a golf course and Billy builds it for a profit and Ronnie runs it for a profit.  How much did Johnny get back on his investment?
I never said how many years - it could be 50 years.

So far the answers we have are:

Tom Doak = -1%
Ian Andrew = reasonable % - but maybe not if you account for the value of cash.

I'd love some real numbers....

Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2008, 12:35:51 PM »
Mike,

I suspect that any publicly owned course, like, say the City of Lake Jackson, would have those numbers as public record, no?  Private owners probably wouldn't give them up.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

David Lott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2008, 02:56:01 PM »
A TIAA-Creef study done in 2006 showed that for the ten years preceding their “total return” on various types of real estate investment (industrial, office, retail, apartment) averaged between 12.5 and 13%. Over the longer term—about 25 years—the rates of return were slightly below 10% for various categories of property. TIAA is usually not taking a developer’s risk. They are more likely to buy mature properties with established tenancies and (more or less) predictable cash flows. The developer, whose return is heavily influenced by what he can sell the completed project for, seeks an even higher rate of return.

There are statistics on the rate of return for golf investments. The large accounting firms, and some law firms heavily involved in the business as a specialty, will have data, as will associations like the National Golf Course Owners Association. You have to buy this data. It doesn’t seem to be available in the internet, based on a quick search.

I don’t know what the returns on golf investments have been, but based on returns available for significantly safer investments, a reasonable expectation for a prudent (if that word can be used for a golf course development investment) investor, would have to be in excess of 15%.

Golf development is very risky, given the cost of land, environmental costs, the uncertainty (and over-optimism) of revenue projections, etc., all as pointed out by other posters. However, a stable and established golf course can be a very good investment with predictable cash flows, if acquired at the right price and run properly.

Some have said that a project like Bandon is likely a hobby or vanity loss leader for Mike Kaiser. Doubtful. They kept the amenities simple, used land that no one else had the imagination to acquire (thus probably at a reasonable price) and have consistent predictable traffic. My guess—and it’s only that—is that they are making out just fine.
David Lott

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2008, 03:42:17 PM »
Thanks Jeff,

I gave the person a reputable firm that could help them with their number crunching.

My request was for my own personal information - no client involvement.
I thought I might get a few numbers based on fact without knowing the course - anonymous like.

Thank you David.

Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2008, 04:23:43 PM »
I asked this question before, but perhaps I was too vague.

Does anyone know or have any data on which type of projects typically results in the best ROIs?  e.g.  Resort, Private Club, Daily Fee, Residential, etc.  I'd imagine Bandon has a nice little ROI going at the moment.

Thanks in advance...

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2008, 04:51:23 PM »
Kalen,

The hard part is, its all over the board.  As I mentioned, a high end course that can get $200 fees certainly stands a better chance of doing better.  But, using the high end of the numbers I posted above, the breakeven point of a course is going to typically be about $1.5 Mil and with good profit, maybe $3.1 Mil. 

For a higher end course, costs go up to at least $4.7M:

Construction and Land Cost Debt - $80 per $1000 on $15M - $1,200,000
Maintenance Costs ($1,200,000)
Pro Shop, etc. ($800K)
Profit at 20% (on $15Mill) $3,000,000

Revenues would need to be $6.2M for the same ROI.  I do know of some courses in the south grossing more than that (40,000 rounds X $165 per head ) even now. 

The problem is, too many of those were built.  If you build a $15 Mil facility and CAN'T draw that many players at that price then the second and third owner scenario comes into play......I guess the good news is that you can only go so broke.  But the most likely Rosy Scemario (I think I dated her once..... ;)) is that your revenue numbers come in a little below those which most do, you might struggle to break even at $4.7 Mil.

So the question is, is a high end course breaking even at $4.7 Mil in revenues less or more successful than a $30 course breaking even with $2 Mil in revenues?

BTW, in some markets, private clubs were actually doing better than publics.  I suspect this economy has that being changed, but still, those high end second clubs up in Montana, etc. are probably still doing quite well, at least the successful ones.

Lastly, its amazing how elastic operation costs can be.  I know a lot of courses who have clipped maintenance budgets to that $400K range from much higher a few years ago.  Thanks to some great efforts by the supers, the places are still pretty decent if not almost equal in condition to a few years ago, save some little details.  In other cases, it shows and the facility goes into that long death spiral.

Construction debt is a killer, but basically static, although I am sure most refinanced when rates were low to reduce it, much like we all did with home mortgages.  Over time, ops costs go up, but raising construction costs from a mid level to a high level facility by $6 Mil adds a half a mil a year to the cost structure.  Raising maintenance and service levels adds just as much.  Small increases in construction cost (esp if for drainage, sod, cart paths and irrigation) may also reduce operations cost long term and are sometimes justified.

So, its basically first a question of market and demographics to support the business plan.  Then, marketing your product can help. Its surprising how ineffective most golf courses market themselves.  Lastly, its how much you spend and just as importantly, how you spend it.


Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2008, 12:18:47 AM »
Thanks for that Jeff,

I've always toyed around with the idea of building a course someday as a type of dream scenario.  Its certainly interesting to look at the outlay needed.

Kalen

Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical Return on Investment
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2008, 04:46:15 PM »
Out of 1023 most popular types of business to invest in golf courses came 996th for profit return about the same as inflation!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back