TO: Ranjit Dhaliwal
FROM: Morgan Brandt
DATE: September 26, 2019
SUBJECT: Peer Review of your Expanded Definition of “Capitalization Rate” on Our Team Forum
I have reviewed your first draft of your expanded definition of capitalization rate. Your work shows a strong background and passion for real estate and a great manner for clarification of concepts through examples. Accordingly, I would like to provide the following suggestions:
Audience and Jargon: You appear to have chosen an audience with a basic understanding of real estate and economics, whereas I have no background with real estate figures outside of watching reality television. This leads to some instances of choosing terms to expand on capitalization rate that could use their own expanded definitions such as “valuation metric,” under What is capitalization rate, and “net operating income,” under How is it used. This does not mean that you cannot use these terms, just provide a simple sentence definition or a short glossary before your works cited section for those of us that may not know the term.
Another instance requiring clarification is under your Limitations section. On the second bullet point, you say, “extremely old properties,” do you mean heritage properties or older than 50 years? To solve this, it would be best to use a clear range of values, perhaps a visual with a break down of properties that do not apply under cap rates.
Focus: Your organization for the definition was well executed and I felt that your examples worked well to translate these concepts into practice. The only part that I feel you could elaborate further on is How is it calculated. This was the only area that you did not use multiple examples to show how we get this figure, and so your definition went through how it is used primarily. While how it is used is very important in defining how it is used, you should add more examples to better translate the concept.
Citations/Visuals: While your expanded definition came across as well informed and you did show 4 sources in your works cited, there was a severe lack of in-text citations to reflect which ideas are not yours. Being this is a definition; your ideas should be founded in the definitions and descriptions of other sources. You paraphrased very well, just remember to include the in-text citation at the end of the sentence with every author that was referenced. Again, your visual was strong in communicating your definition, however, there was no citation for the figure nor signal phrase to connect it to a specific idea. Remember to take this into account during your second draft.
I hope this feedback is valuable in your revisions and reinforces that you have a strong foundation for this definition. I look forward to seeing how you implement these suggestions and if you have any questions for clarification, do not be afraid to ask me.
link to definition draft 1
Leave a Reply