Decision Tree For Jackhibiscus Properties Inc Week 5 Get 2 I

Decision Treenoel Jackhibiscus Properties Incweek 5get 2 Investors 1

Decision Tree Noel Jack HIBISCUS PROPERTIES, INC. Week 5 Get 2 investors 10% $40k high demand 1% fees $20k $0k do nothing 4 Bedroom Get Investors Get 1 investor 12% 40k do nothing 3 bedroom low demand 0k Get 2 investors 5%per $50k high demand get 1 investor 15% $30k DECISION TREE At the time my small company, Hibiscus Properties, Inc. was trying to increase the size of the Organization and we were buying as many properties as possible to repair them and rent and sell them after the market had turned up. The company had just started operating and had decided to bring in investors to help fund our acquisitions. The decision at this time was to expand the business as fast as possible and also the decision was whether we should buy the 4 bedroom or 3 bedroom property taking into consideration the payments to the investors and also to encourage investors to do business with us now and in the future. Thanks for your input.

Paper For Above instruction

Hibiscus Properties, Inc. faced a critical decision early in its development regarding how to effectively expand its property portfolio while incentivizing investor participation. The company’s strategy involved acquiring properties—specifically, 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom units—and funding these acquisitions through investor investments. A decision tree analysis reveals that the company had multiple options, each with potential financial implications and strategic consequences, particularly regarding investor returns and the attractiveness of investment opportunities.

The core decision centered around whether to pursue 3-bedroom or 4-bedroom properties, considering the interest rates, potential investor contributions, and associated costs. For the 4-bedroom property, the company considered attracting two investors offering a 10% return on a $40,000 investment with high market demand. The scenario assumed a 1% fee and potential gains of $20,000 for the company, or alternatively, doing nothing and avoiding costs. Conversely, for the 3-bedroom, low-demand property, the strategy was to attract a single investor, offering a higher 12% return on a $40,000 investment with no additional fees, or again, opting to do nothing.

Further options involved adjusting the number of investors and the rate of return based on demand and investment size. High-demand scenarios could result in getting two investors with a 5% return on a $50,000 investment, or, in some cases, attracting one investor with a 15% return on a $30,000 investment during peak demand. The decision to pursue multiple investors or higher returns was essential in understanding the trade-offs between immediate capital influx and long-term financial sustainability.

As a nascent organization, Hibiscus Properties aimed for rapid growth by acquiring multiple properties to renovate and rent or sell once market conditions improved. The decision tree model helps illustrate that the company’s choices depended heavily on projected demand, investor willingness, and the profitability of each property type. For example, the 4-bedroom units offered larger-scale investments with potentially higher returns but also higher risks, whereas 3-bedroom units, especially in low-demand markets, might generate steadier, less risky income streams.

From a strategic perspective, the company needed to balance attracting sufficient investor funds with manageable return rates to ensure continued investor interest. Offering higher returns, such as 15%, could incentivize immediate investment but might strain profits if market conditions did not favor such rates. Conversely, lower returns coupled with high demand could attract more investors with less strain on financial resources. Therefore, data-driven analysis using decision trees provided a structured method for evaluating these complex trade-offs, ensuring alignment with the organization’s aggressive growth strategy and investor relations objectives.

In conclusion, Hibiscus Properties Inc. utilized a decision tree approach to navigate the complexities of property acquisition financing. By assessing various scenarios—considering property type, investor participation, demand levels, and return rates—the company could make informed decisions that balanced risk, reward, and long-term growth potential. This strategic analytical tool is invaluable for small organizations seeking rapid expansion while maintaining investor confidence and financial health. Ultimately, the decision to choose between 3-bedroom or 4-bedroom properties and associated investor terms depended on market demand and the company’s capacity to deliver attractive yet sustainable returns to its investors.

References

• Jackson, D. (2020). Real Estate Investment Decision Making. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 38(3), 215-229.
• Smith, A., & Lee, B. (2019). Strategic Real Estate Development and Finance. Urban Land Institute.
• Rosen, K. T. (2018). Investment Analysis for Real Estate Decisions. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Fanning, S. (2021). The Role of Decision Trees in Real Estate Investment Strategies. Real Estate Economics, 49(2), 321-341.
• Mitchell, R., & Collins, P. (2017). Applied Financial Modelling and Decision-Making in Real Estate. Routledge.
• Geltner, D., Miller, N., & Clayton, J. (2014). Commercial Real Estate Analysis and Investments. OnCourse Learning.
• Ling, D. C., & Archer, W. R. (2017). Real Estate Principles. Routledge.
• Heppen, J. B., & Schuknecht, A. (2019). Decision-Making Models in Property Investment. Journal of Property Research, 36(4), 315-336.
• Banks, T. (2020). Market Demand and Investor Behavior in Residential Real Estate. Housing Policy Debate, 30(1), 45-67.
• Brueggeman, W. B., & Fisher, J. D. (2019). Real Estate Finance and Investments. McGraw-Hill Education.