An asset renovation is a significant capital event, the asset goes offline, the balance sheet takes a hit, and there is an assumption that the post-reno product will reopen to stronger occupancies and ADR.

Here are 3 common pitfalls worth stress-testing before committing CAPEX:

1. The market may not absorb the post-renovation rate.

Upgrading to current brand standards is not the same as underwriting if the market will support the rate required to justify the spend. A Phuket beach resort renovating to upper-upscale spec is competing against new supply entrants (who are still establishing their ADRs) and upcoming pipeline.

The feasibility question therefore goes beyond "what will the asset be worth after renovation" but "what RevPAR can this sub-market support in three years."

2. Repositioning the product without repositioning the distribution.

A renovated asset with a new rate strategy sitting on the same channel mix and the same rate architecture as pre-reno will underperform. The channel mix that filled rooms at an ADR of USD180 will not efficiently fill rooms at USD280.

This is the most common post-renovation earnings disappointment — while the hardware has improved, the commercial strategy or service levels fail to evolve along with the property.

3. The comp set you renovate against is not the comp set you open into.

A renovation planned in 2024 and completed in 2026 opens into a different competitive landscape. In markets with active pipelines, new supply opening in the renovation window can reset the rate environment before the asset returns. Stress-testing the competitive position at opening, not at planning, is a discipline that needs to be exercised.

Renovation planning that does not address all three — rate absorption, distribution and service repositioning, and forward compset — is incomplete. The CAPEX decision and the commercial strategy needs to be in lock step to ensure successful execution.

horwathhtl.com