FAQ
Why are mobile home parks considered a strong cash-flow investment?
Mobile home parks combine sticky residents (because moving a home is expensive and difficult) with a structure where the operator typically owns only the land and infrastructure, not the homes themselves. That means:
- Residents have pride of ownership and often stay for decades.
- The operator isn’t constantly renovating units between tenants.
- Lot rents can be relatively resilient, especially in markets with severe affordable housing shortages.
This can translate into stable, predictable cash flow compared to some other real estate types.
Do residents in mobile home parks actually own their homes?
In the model Kevin describes, yes. Residents:
- Own the mobile home as personal property, similar to a vehicle.
- Pay the operator lot rent for the land and access to utilities and amenities.
- Typically sell their home “in place” to a new buyer when they move, who then takes over the lot lease.
This arrangement encourages longer tenures and greater care for the property.
Why don’t we see many new mobile home parks being built?
Kevin points to two main reasons:
- Zoning and perception: Many municipalities associate mobile home parks with negative stereotypes and are reluctant to approve new communities.
- Tax economics: Parks often generate less property tax per acre than other uses (e.g., traditional housing or commercial), so cities may prefer higher-revenue developments.
As a result, there are far more parks being shut down or redeveloped than built, shrinking overall supply.
What makes a parking garage or lot a good investment?
Kevin’s criteria include:
- Located in a high-growth, dense urban core with strong demand drivers.
- Cash flowing from day one.
- Acquired at below replacement cost, making it effectively “irreplaceable” at current build prices.
- Multiple value-add levers:
- Dynamic pricing (higher during busy times, lower off-peak)
- Tech upgrades and better operations
- Safety and aesthetic improvements (lighting, striping, etc.)
- Long-term upside from potential higher-and-better uses via air rights and future redevelopment.
How does Kevin’s firm structure investments for passive investors?
While details can vary by deal and fund, Kevin describes a typical structure as:
- An 8–10% preferred return to investors.
- Return of investor capital plus any accrued preferred returns before the sponsor participates in profits.
- A 70/30 split of remaining profits (70% to limited partners, 30% to the general partner).
Historically, it has taken around 5–6 years to fully return capital and pref before the GP shares in the upside.
As a passive investor, should I focus on the asset class or the operator?
Kevin is clear: while asset class matters, the operator matters more. His guidance:
- Assess the sponsor’s track record across market cycles good times and bad.
- Check their reputation and references with current investors.
- Look at how they communicate during adversity, not just during wins.
- Evaluate their balance sheet and risk management, not just marketing and pro formas.
A strong “jockey” can make many different “horses” (asset types) work; a weak jockey can struggle even in popular niches.