Supply and Demand in Bankable Feasibility Studies: How the Gap Gets Measured
- 4 hours ago
- 20 min read
1. Why the Gap Is the Conclusion
A feasibility study does not answer whether there is demand. It answers whether there is demand the subject can capture, net of the supply that already exists and the supply that is coming. That distinction is the whole discipline. A market can have excellent demographics, rising incomes, strong in-migration, a growing target cohort, and still be uninvestable, because the supply got there first. The number that decides the loan is not demand and it is not supply. It is the gap between them, measured over the time it takes the subject to open and lease up.
This is where most feasibility conclusions are actually made, and it is where most of them actually fail. Demographic analysis sizes the demand pool. Supply and demand analysis collides that pool with the competitive set and the construction pipeline, and what survives the collision is the residual demand the subject can realistically capture. If that residual is large enough to fill the building at the rents the pro forma assumes, within the time the debt structure allows, the project is feasible. If it is not, no amount of demographic strength rescues it. The reviewer knows this, which is why the supply section is read with more suspicion than any other part of the study. Demand can be estimated generously and defended with a citation. Supply is a matter of fact: the competitors exist or they do not, the pipeline is permitted or it is not, and a reviewer who knows the market can falsify a soft supply analysis in a single phone call.
The error that sinks a study is almost never an arithmetic mistake in the demand build-up. It is an omission on the supply side: a competitor left out of the set, a permitted project left out of the pipeline, an absorption rate borrowed from the developer rather than derived from comparable lease-ups. Each of these inflates the gap, and an inflated gap makes a marginal deal read as comfortable. The supply analysis is therefore the part of the study where conservatism is not a stylistic preference but a survival trait, because every optimistic assumption compounds directly into the capture rate the project must achieve against real competition.
This paper sets out the discipline of that analysis: the regulatory anchors that require it, the supply apparatus and the points at which it breaks, the four substantive variables that carry the work, two worked examples that show the arithmetic reviewers expect to see, the asset-class conventions, a defensibility checklist, and the failure modes that invalidate a supply conclusion in peer review.
2. Four Regulatory Anchors
A feasibility study names the standard that binds its loan program, and on the supply side those standards are more explicit than most sponsors expect. Market feasibility is the component reviewers test first, because it is the component a borrower has the least incentive to present honestly.
SBA SOP 50 10 8 (effective June 1, 2025) (1) is the operative procedural standard for 7(a) and 504 lending, superseding SOP 50 10 7.1 for all loans receiving an SBA number on or after that date. The SOP does not impose a blanket dollar threshold for a third-party feasibility study, but it enumerates the risk patterns in which one should be obtained, and several of them are supply conditions in plain language. Market saturation by industry and location is the first named trigger. A project size disproportionately large for the community it serves is another. A unique or unproven market concept is a third. Each of these is a question about supply and demand balance, and the SOP's logic is that the credit memorandum must resolve the question "will this business work here, at this scale, against what already exists," with a third-party study as the standard remediation when the lender's own file cannot. The special-purpose property regime adds a second layer: car washes, gas stations, hotels, nursing homes, and roughly two dozen other owner-operator asset classes carry escalated borrower equity injection, rising from a 10 percent baseline to 15 percent for special-purpose or start-up projects and to 20 percent where both conditions apply, and the going-concern appraisal must be performed by an appraiser who has completed no fewer than four going-concern appraisals of equivalent special-use property within the prior 36 months (1).
USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 (2), the OneRD Guaranteed Loan Regulation governing Business and Industry, Community Facilities, Water and Waste Disposal, and REAP guaranteed loans, is the most explicit market-feasibility mandate in federal commercial lending. Section 5001.3 defines a feasibility study as a report by an independent qualified consultant evaluating the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of the project. Market feasibility is one of the five codified components, and Appendix A to Subpart D specifies its content: an analysis of current and future market potential, competition, and sales or service estimations including current and prospective buyers or users. That is a supply and demand analysis by another name. For B&I, an independent feasibility study is mandatory for any guaranteed loan above one million dollars to a new business under Section 5001.306, and the Agency retains residual authority under Section 5001.303 to require one on any application where it cannot otherwise determine a basis for repayment. The service-area requirement is the regulatory anchor for the supply work: the study must define a service area, populate it with current data, and test demand against the competition inside those boundaries.
USPAP Standards Rule 1-3 (3), 2024 Edition, requires the appraiser, when necessary for credible results, to identify and analyze the effect on use and value of the economic supply and demand conditions and the market area trends affecting the subject. The Comment to the rule prohibits unsupported assumptions about market-area trends. For commercial property this means the workfile must contain a supply inventory, a demand analysis, and an absorption study sufficient to support the conclusion, because the financially feasible prong of highest and best use cannot be reached without them. Supply and demand analysis is not an optional appendix in an appraisal; it is the evidentiary basis on which the value opinion stands.
Agency and institutional underwriting standards (4) function as the de facto fourth anchor. Fannie Mae's multifamily guide requires a market study that identifies the absorption rate, the lease-up period, and the rent level for comparable market-rate properties in the submarket. The NCHMA Model Content Standards, adopted in whole or part by most state housing finance agencies for LIHTC work, require the analyst to enumerate the competitive supply property by property and to disclose the construction pipeline by stage. These are not federal statutes, but for the loans they govern they are binding, and they codify the supply discipline that the SBA and USDA frameworks imply.
The convention is that a study names the anchor that binds its loan. A study that never declares its standard has left the supply methodology to the consultant's preference rather than the program's requirement, and a reviewer who cannot find the anchor reads the entire supply section with the suspicion that omission earns.
3. The Supply Apparatus and Where It Breaks
The demand side of a feasibility study draws on public data, principally the Census. The supply side draws on a patchwork of proprietary databases, each with its own coverage, refresh cadence, and methodology, and the gaps between them are where supply analysis most often fails.
The competitive set is the foundation, and only one asset class has codified rules for building it. STR, now part of CoStar, publishes Competitive Set Guidelines for hotels that have been in force since January 1, 2017: a set must include at least four participating properties besides the subject, at least three of them unaffiliated, at least two unaffiliated companies, with no single property or brand exceeding 50 percent of participating room supply and no single company exceeding 70 percent (5). These rules exist to protect confidentiality and prevent gaming, and STR enforces them by suppressing data for non-compliant sets. No other asset class has anything so precise. Multifamily, retail, self-storage, senior living, and industrial all rely on the analyst's judgment about what counts as competitive, governed by convention rather than rule, which is exactly why the comp set is the most common place a study is quietly manipulated. The NCHMA standard is the closest analog outside lodging: it requires the analyst to explain how the comparable properties were selected and, critically, why others were excluded (6).
The pipeline is the single most common reviewer flag, because every data vendor stages it differently and none of them is complete. Lodging Econometrics stages the hotel pipeline in three buckets: under construction, scheduled to start within twelve months, and early planning (7). Yardi Matrix stages the self-storage and multifamily pipeline in five: under construction, planned, prospective, deferred, and abandoned (8). The conservative convention is to count all of the under-construction supply, roughly half of the permitted or scheduled supply, and little to none of the early-planning or prospective supply, with the analyst disclosing the probability weights applied. The failure mode is rarely deliberate fraud. It is a junior analyst trusting a single vendor database that misses an owner-developer's permitted project, or a sponsor who is reluctant to fully count a competitor's announced expansion. Either way, an omitted pipeline understates future supply and inflates the gap, and a reviewer who pulls the local permit records will find it.
Absorption is where developer optimism enters the model, and the discipline is to derive it from comparable lease-ups rather than from the sponsor. The NCHMA standard requires the analyst to document the absorption experience of recently completed competitive properties, with particular emphasis on those that entered the market within the prior 24 months, and to base the subject's absorption forecast on stabilized occupancy rather than on a full lease-up to 100 percent (6). Net absorption, the change in occupied space over a period, is the institutional measure, because it captures move-outs alongside move-ins. A study that assumes a faster absorption pace than the comparable set actually achieved has substituted hope for evidence, and the lease-up schedule is where that substitution does the most damage, because it drives the date the project reaches a debt-service-covering occupancy.
The data providers are well defined by asset class, and naming the wrong one, or none, is the clearest tell of an amateur study. Hotels run on STR and Lodging Econometrics. Multifamily runs on CoStar, Yardi Matrix, and RealPage. Self-storage runs on Yardi Matrix, Radius+, and StorTrack. Senior living runs on NIC MAP Vision. Industrial and retail run on CoStar, CBRE, JLL, and Cushman and Wakefield research, validated against the Census Building Permits Survey as a public baseline (9). Every supply, pipeline, or saturation figure in a defensible study carries its source, its extract date, its geography, and its inclusion criteria. A figure missing any one of those is not feasibility grade.
4. Four Substantive Variables
Beneath the apparatus sit four variables that do the analytical work. Which one is binding depends on the asset and the stage of its market cycle.
Existing competitive supply. This is the inventory the subject must take share from on day one, and the discipline is enumeration, not estimation. A defensible supply analysis lists each competitor by name, address, size in units or keys or square feet, vintage, occupancy, and rate, with the basis for inclusion stated. The distinction between primary and secondary competitors matters: a primary competitor draws the same customer in the same trade area at the same price point and is weighted fully, while a secondary competitor overlaps only partially and is weighted down. The point of enumeration is falsifiability. A reviewer can verify a named property; a reviewer cannot verify "approximately fifteen competing facilities in the trade area," which is the phrasing of a study that did not do the work.
The pipeline, staged by probability of delivery. Existing supply is what the subject competes with today; the pipeline is what it will compete with by the time it opens and stabilizes, which for most assets is two to three years out. The pipeline is not a single number. A hotel market with 705,825 rooms in the national pipeline but only 132,016 actually under construction has a near-term supply reality five times smaller than the headline (7), and a study that counts the whole pipeline as imminent supply is as wrong as a study that counts none of it. Staging is the discipline: under construction is near-certain, permitted and scheduled is probable, early planning is speculative. The analyst weights each stage and discloses the weights, because the pipeline is the variable most sensitive to the analyst's judgment and therefore the one a reviewer probes hardest.
Absorption, the time axis. Supply and demand are stocks; absorption is the flow that connects them, and it is the variable that turns a static gap into a lease-up schedule. The relevant questions are how fast comparable properties filled, what the resulting months of supply looks like, and whether the pipeline's delivery timing collides with the subject's lease-up window. Absorption is where the 2026 market matters: across industrial, multifamily, and senior housing, absorption is forecast to overtake new deliveries on a national basis for the first time in roughly a decade (10), which means a study underwriting to 2023 and 2024 vacancy comps will systematically understate the stabilized occupancy a supply-constrained submarket can now support. The absorption assumption feeds directly into the date the project reaches a debt-service-covering occupancy, and that date is the hinge of the entire pro forma.
The saturation benchmark, read against the right denominator. Every asset class has a rule of thumb for how much supply a market can support per unit of demand: net rentable square feet per capita for self-storage, rooms per thousand population for hotels, penetration against income-qualified senior households for senior living, square feet per capita for retail. The benchmark is useful and dangerous in equal measure, because it is meaningless without its denominator and its source. Self-storage saturation is quoted anywhere from 6.3 to 9.5 net rentable square feet per capita depending on which vendor and which methodology (11), a spread wide enough to move a market from undersupplied to oversaturated, and the same facility count can read as balanced on a units-per-capita basis and oversupplied on a square-feet-per-capita basis. A saturation figure cited without naming its denominator, its geography, and its source is an assertion dressed as a measurement.
5. Two Worked Examples
Institutional reviewers expect to see the arithmetic that produces the gap, not a conclusion asserted over a hidden calculation. Two examples carry most of the supply work in practice.
Worked Example A: Staging the Pipeline
Subject: a select-service hotel proposed in a submarket where the broker's package reports a large and alarming construction pipeline, and the sponsor wants to know whether the market is about to be oversupplied before the subject opens.
Existing competitive supply, trade area: 1,200 rooms across the primary set
Reported pipeline, all stages: 600 rooms, which on its face is a 50 percent supply increase
Under construction: 110 rooms, near-certain to deliver within the lease-up window
Permitted and scheduled to start within twelve months: 240 rooms, weighted at 50 percent probability of delivering before the subject stabilizes, for 120 effective rooms
Early planning, no firm start: 250 rooms, weighted at 10 percent, for 25 effective rooms
Probability-weighted new supply: 110 + 120 + 25 = 255 effective rooms, a 21 percent increase, not 50 percent
The headline pipeline implied a market about to absorb half again its current supply, a number that would sink the deal. The staged pipeline tells a different and more accurate story: the realistic near-term supply increase is 21 percent, because most of the early-planning rooms will not deliver during the subject's lease-up, and some will never deliver at all. The discipline is not to dismiss the pipeline, which would be its own failure, but to weight it by probability of delivery and disclose the weights, so the reviewer can adjust them. The variable that decides the conclusion here is not how many rooms are announced but how many will actually open before the subject reaches stabilization (7).
Worked Example B: The Saturation Gap and Its Denominator
Subject: a self-storage facility proposed in a trade area, where the question is whether the market is already saturated before the subject and its pipeline are added.
Trade-area population: 50,000
Existing supply: 350,000 net rentable square feet
Existing supply per capita: 350,000 / 50,000 = 7.0 net rentable square feet per capita
Under-construction pipeline in the trade area: 60,000 net rentable square feet, counted in full
Subject proposed size: 65,000 net rentable square feet
Total supply at the subject's stabilization: 350,000 + 60,000 + 65,000 = 475,000 net rentable square feet
Supply per capita at stabilization: 475,000 / 50,000 = 9.5 net rentable square feet per capita
The conclusion depends entirely on which benchmark the analyst names. Against a balanced-market benchmark of 7.0 square feet per capita, the trade area is already at equilibrium before the pipeline, and the subject plus the pipeline pushes it to 9.5, deep into oversupply. Against a higher benchmark of 9.0 to 9.5 drawn from a different vendor, the market looks merely full rather than saturated. The honest study does not pick the benchmark that supports the deal. It names the source and vintage of the benchmark it uses, reports the per-capita figure both with and without the pipeline, and notes that a units-per-capita calculation could yield a different read in a dense market where renters take smaller units (11). The gap is real either way; the question is whether the study discloses the denominator that defines it.
6. Asset-Class Conventions
The binding supply variable shifts by asset, and the 2026 market has moved several asset classes sharply in one direction. The convention library is well established for the major institutional types.
Hotels run on the STR competitive set and the Lodging Econometrics pipeline, with fair-share and penetration analysis as the demand-capture method. National supply growth is forecast at roughly 0.7 to 1.4 percent for 2026, well below the long-term average of about 2 percent, and rooms under construction declined year over year for fifteen consecutive months through early 2026 (12). The supply story is genuinely tight; the demand story is the soft side, with 2025 posting a rare non-recessionary RevPAR decline. The binding variable is the staged pipeline read against fair share, and the discipline is to distinguish chain scales, since luxury and upper-upscale are absorbing the rate growth while economy and select-service face pressure.
Multifamily runs on CoStar, Yardi Matrix, and RealPage, with absorption versus completions as the central test, bounded by the thirty percent rent-to-income affordability standard. Calendar 2024 was the supply peak at roughly 685,000 units delivered nationally, and 2026 deliveries are forecast around 459,000 units, a decline of roughly a third, with absorption now overtaking completions and the national vacancy rate near 4.8 to 4.9 percent (13). The binding variable is the collision between the local pipeline and local absorption, and the discipline is geographic: Sun Belt high-supply markets are still digesting their 2024 deliveries while coastal and Midwest gateways have already rebalanced.
Self-storage runs on Yardi Matrix, Radius+, and StorTrack, with net rentable square feet per capita as the saturation test against a 3-to-5 mile trade area. It is the one major asset class where the 2026 supply forecast was revised upward, to roughly 51 million square feet, even as construction starts ran well below the prior-year pace, and average tenant length of stay has lengthened to about 18.5 months (14). The binding variable is the saturation gap inclusive of the pipeline, and the discipline is naming the denominator, since the per-capita benchmark diverges by roughly fifty percent across sources.
Senior living runs on NIC MAP Vision, with penetration against income-qualified 75-plus households as the demand test and absorption versus inventory growth as the supply test. The asset class is in structural undersupply: occupancy reached about 89 percent in late 2025, inventory growth fell to roughly 0.6 percent, units under construction sit near the lowest level since 2012, and absorption has exceeded inventory growth for eighteen consecutive quarters as the first baby boomers turn 80 in 2026 (15). The binding variable is the demand wave against constrained supply, and the discipline is the denominator: penetration must be measured against income-qualified households, a far narrower base than all 75-plus households.
Industrial runs on CoStar, CBRE, and Prologis research, with net absorption and the build-to-suit share of the pipeline as the supply tests. The market passed peak vacancy in late 2025 at roughly 6.7 to 7.3 percent, deliveries collapsed to the lowest level since 2017 as speculative starts went uneconomic, and absorption is forecast to overtake deliveries in 2026 (16). The binding variable is the bifurcation between big-box distribution and infill shallow-bay, with the latter the tighter segment by a wide margin.
Retail runs on CBRE, ICSC, and CoStar, with availability and net absorption as the tests against ICSC trade-area conventions. It is the most durable undersupply story in commercial real estate: national availability sat near 4.8 percent in late 2025, a near record low, new construction is minimal, and the country is estimated to be undersupplied by roughly 200 million square feet (17). The binding variable is the near-absence of new supply against steady demand, with neighborhood and grocery-anchored centers the tightest segment.
Convenience, fuel, and car wash assets follow traffic-driven conventions rather than population saturation, anchored to commuter daytime traffic counts on the adjacent road, with the competitive set defined by the stations and washes capturing the same traffic stream (18). The binding variable is the pass-by traffic the subject can capture net of direct competitors on the same corridor, and the discipline is that the relevant supply is not the rooftop count but the competing capture points on the route.
7. Defensibility Checklist
A defensible supply and demand analysis carries a specific set of disclosures, and institutional review tests against them. The following ten items capture the operative criteria.
1. Competitive set enumerated. Each primary and secondary competitor listed by name, address, size, vintage, occupancy, and rate, with the basis for inclusion and the primary-versus-secondary weighting stated.
2. Comp-set selection defended. The study explains how the competitive set was chosen and why other properties were excluded, the discipline that guards against cherry-picking.
3. Pipeline staged. The construction pipeline enumerated by stage, under construction, permitted, and planning, with the probability weights applied to each stage disclosed.
4. Pipeline verified beyond a single vendor. The pipeline cross-checked against local permit records, not lifted whole from one database, with the data source and extract date named.
5. Absorption derived from comparables. The absorption forecast based on the documented lease-up experience of named comparable properties, with particular weight on those completed within the prior 24 months, not on developer estimate.
6. Stabilization defined correctly. The lease-up schedule built to a stabilized occupancy appropriate to the asset class, not to a full 100 percent, with the stabilized benchmark named.
7. Saturation denominator named. Every per-capita or penetration figure reported with its numerator, denominator, geography, and source, and the saturation benchmark attributed by vendor and vintage.
8. Supply and pipeline reconciled to demand. The gap calculated explicitly as qualified demand net of existing supply and probability-weighted pipeline, not asserted.
9. Absorption stress-tested. The lease-up schedule and resulting debt service coverage tested at the base case and at reduced absorption pace, with the break-even occupancy disclosed.
10. Regulatory anchor named. SOP 50 10 8, 7 CFR Part 5001, or USPAP SR 1-3 cited as the standard against which the study expects review.
A study satisfying these ten items is review-ready. A study missing three or more is exposed to material rework, and a reviewer who finds the gaps reads the capture rate with the suspicion the omissions earn.
8. Eight Failure Modes
Common review-stage failures in supply and demand analysis. Each is sufficient to invalidate a conclusion in institutional peer review.
Failure 1: The omitted competitor. A competitive property left out of the set, whether through incomplete fieldwork or convenient blindness, which understates existing supply and inflates the capture rate the subject can claim. Fix: enumerate the set in full and defend the exclusions explicitly.
Failure 2: The omitted pipeline. A permitted or under-construction project left out, the single most common reviewer flag, which understates future supply and the competition the subject faces at stabilization. Fix: stage the pipeline from verified permit records, not a single vendor feed.
Failure 3: The whole pipeline counted as imminent. The opposite error, treating every announced project as certain near-term supply, which understates the gap and can kill a viable deal. Fix: weight each stage by probability of delivery and disclose the weights.
Failure 4: Borrowed absorption. A lease-up pace taken from the developer's projection or an unnamed source rather than from comparable properties' documented experience, which accelerates the date the project covers debt service. Fix:derive absorption from named comparables completed within the prior two years.
Failure 5: Saturation without a denominator. A per-capita or penetration figure cited to the decimal with no denominator, no geography, and no source, masking whether the market is balanced or saturated. Fix: report the benchmark with numerator, denominator, geography, and vendor.
Failure 6: The cherry-picked benchmark. A saturation standard selected from the vendor whose number supports the deal, when a different and equally valid source would reverse the conclusion. Fix: name the benchmark source and vintage, and report the figure against the range of available benchmarks.
Failure 7: Stale comps in a turning market. A supply and absorption analysis built on 2023 and 2024 vacancy data in an asset class where 2026 absorption has overtaken deliveries, which misjudges the stabilized occupancy the market now supports. Fix: reconcile the analysis to the most recent quarterly supply and absorption vintage.
Failure 8: No regulatory anchor. A study that never names the standard it expects to be reviewed against, leaving the supply methodology as the consultant's preference rather than the program's requirement. Fix: cite the binding anchor at first reference.
9. The Supply and Demand Triad
A defensible supply and demand analysis rests on three pillars: supply enumerated, pipeline staged, and absorption defended.
Supply enumerated binds the analysis to the competitors that actually exist, listed property by property with the basis for inclusion, weighted between primary and secondary, and reconciled against demand to produce a gap rather than an assertion. A competitive set that cannot be verified is a competitive set that was not built, and the reviewer treats it as such.
Pipeline staged binds the forward view to the supply that will actually deliver during the subject's lease-up, weighted by probability of delivery and verified beyond a single vendor's database. The headline pipeline is never the operative pipeline; the staged and weighted pipeline is, and the discipline is to disclose the weights so the reviewer can adjust them.
Absorption defended binds the time axis to the documented experience of comparable lease-ups rather than to developer optimism, stress-tested at reduced pace, and reconciled to the current market vintage rather than to comps the cycle has overtaken. The absorption assumption sets the date the project covers its debt, and that date is the conclusion in all but name.
A feasibility study that satisfies the triad, supply enumerated, pipeline staged, absorption defended, has earned its capture rate and its lease-up schedule. A study that does not has produced a gap the reviewer will test first and find inflated. Supply and demand analysis answers the question every feasibility conclusion turns on: not whether the demand exists, but whether enough of it survives the competition, today and at delivery, to fill the building at the rents the loan requires. The rest of the study is downstream of the answer.
May 26, 2026, by Michal Mohelsky, J.D. Principal of MMCG Invest, LLC, feaisbility study conustlant.
Reach out to discuss how our methodology supports your lending or development decision.
Michal Mohelsky, J.D. | Principal | mmcginvest.com
Contact: michal@mmcginvest.com
Phone: (628) 225-1125
Disclaimer: This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Data presented herein is derived from proprietary MMCG databases and third-party sources believed to be reliable; however, MMCG Invest makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Figures from third-party industry databases have been independently verified and, where appropriate, adjusted to reflect MMCG's proprietary analytical methodology. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Sources
(1) SBA Information Notice, "Issuance of SOP 50 10 8 with Technical Updates," effective June 1, 2025; market-saturation and special-purpose feasibility triggers; equity-injection tiers and going-concern appraisal requirement. sba.gov.
(2) USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 (OneRD Guaranteed Loan Regulation); Section 5001.3 feasibility-study definition, Section 5001.306 B&I feasibility trigger, Section 5001.303 residual authority, and Appendix A to Subpart D market-feasibility component. ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-L/part-5001.
(3) Appraisal Standards Board, USPAP 2024 Edition, Standards Rule 1-3 (economic supply and demand and market-area trend analysis), effective January 1, 2024.
(4) Fannie Mae Multifamily Selling and Servicing Guide (market-study and absorption requirements); NCHMA Model Content Standards V3.1 (September 2025), competitive-environment and pipeline disclosure. fanniemae.com; housingonline.com.
(5) STR / CoStar, Competitive Set Guidelines, effective January 1, 2017; four-property, three-unaffiliated, two-company minimums and the 50 percent and 70 percent caps. costar.com.
(6) National Council of Housing Market Analysts, Model Content Standards V3.1 and "Recommended Practices for Determining Demand"; comp-set selection, exclusion disclosure, and 24-month absorption-comparable requirement. housingonline.com.
(7) Lodging Econometrics, U.S. Construction Pipeline Trend Report, Q1 2026; total pipeline of 6,020 projects and 705,825 rooms with 1,071 projects and 132,016 rooms under construction. lodgingeconometrics.com.
(8) Yardi Matrix, self-storage and multifamily methodology; five-stage pipeline (under construction, planned, prospective, deferred, abandoned) and stage-transition forecasting. yardimatrix.com.
(9) U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey and New Residential Construction; methodology and release schedule. census.gov/construction/bps.
(10) CBRE Research and Prologis Research, 2026 outlooks; absorption forecast to exceed deliveries across industrial, multifamily, and senior housing on a national basis. cbre.com; prologis.com.
(11) Self-Storage Almanac 2025 (Radius+ data); Yardi Matrix National Self Storage Report; Self Storage Association Industry Data Report. Per-capita saturation figures range approximately 6.3 to 9.5 NRSF by source and methodology, and a units-per-capita basis can yield a different read than a square-feet-per-capita basis. modernstoragemedia.com; yardimatrix.com.
(12) CoStar / Tourism Economics, U.S. Hotel Forecast (February 2026); Lodging Econometrics Q1 2026 pipeline; 2026 supply growth of roughly 0.7 to 1.4 percent and fifteen consecutive months of declining rooms under construction. costar.com; lodgingeconometrics.com.
(13) Yardi Matrix U.S. Multifamily Supply Forecast (January 2026); CBRE U.S. Multifamily Figures (Q4 2025 and Q1 2026); 2024 peak of roughly 685,000 units, 2026 forecast near 459,000 units, national vacancy near 4.8 to 4.9 percent. yardimatrix.com; cbre.com.
(14) Yardi Matrix National Self Storage Report (April 2026) and Self Storage Supply Forecast (February 2026); 46.5 million NRSF under construction at 2.3 percent of inventory, 2026 supply forecast raised to roughly 51 million NRSF, average length of stay near 18.5 months. yardimatrix.com.
(15) NIC MAP Vision 4Q25 Market Fundamentals Data Release (January 2026); senior housing occupancy of 89.1 percent in Primary Markets, inventory growth of 0.6 percent, units under construction near the lowest since 2012, eighteen consecutive quarters of absorption exceeding inventory growth. nicmap.com; nic.org.
(16) CBRE Q4 2025 U.S. Industrial and Logistics Figures; Cushman and Wakefield and Prologis Research; vacancy of roughly 6.7 to 7.3 percent near peak, deliveries at the lowest since 2017, absorption forecast to overtake deliveries in 2026. cbre.com; prologis.com.
(17) CBRE Q4 2025 U.S. Retail Figures and "Five Forces Shaping the Future of Retail"; national availability near 4.8 percent and an estimated 200-million-square-foot undersupply. cbre.com.
(18) NACS State of the Industry (2026); International Carwash Association industry data; traffic-driven siting conventions for convenience, fuel, and car wash assets. convenience.org.
Comments