The 6 components of an institutional-grade feasibility study

A back-of-napkin residual is a conversation starter. It is not a study. Institutional underwriting has a shape: costs, revenues, capital structure, returns, risk, then a narrative that a third party can audit. Skip a layer and the IC will find it.

The six components

• Cash outflows — land, construction, soft costs, phasing. If the cost plan is vague, every return is theatre.
• Cash inflows — the asset’s actual revenue language: rooms, GLA, sales proceeds, payment plans.
• Financing — tranches, LTC/LTV, equity, preference shares, escrow, covenants. Capital structure is not a plug.
• Project and equity returns — unlevered and levered IRR, NPV, multiples, DSCR where it applies.
• Scenario analysis — base, upside, downside with named drivers, not a single “conservative” case.
• The study — market commentary, risks, and an executive pack that matches the engine, not a parallel Word file.

Why the order is the product

Each component feeds the next. You cannot finance a scheme whose costs and revenues are still informal. You cannot stress IRR until the waterfall exists. FeasiBuild enforces that path so the generated deck is a view of the model, not a rewrite of it.

What separates a professional study from a back-of-napkin calculation is structure you can interrogate.