A fair price both sides can explain

Balanced inputs: We use facts that are sourced, dated, and unitized. Assumptions are consistent across the report and cross-checked against reality. Outliers are flagged, not quietly averaged in. If a number changes upstream, the downstream math updates.

Scheme first: We start with what the site and the market support today, not a target return. Comparable sales, the cost plan, absorption, and development margin drive the band. A method output cannot leapfrog weak evidence. Strong evidence can

Market anchored: We reference recent condo sales, relevant RiNo schemes, blended dollars per square foot, and the cost of finance. Each data point has a source and a date so readers can judge freshness. Stale or non-comparable data is excluded.

Shared fairness : Both sides should be able to explain the number in a few sentences. Steps are reproducible from inputs to final output, with no hidden tweaks. If we override a method, we say what we changed and why. The same logic applies to everyone.

Durable value: We test how much the conclusion moves under reasonable changes. Band up or down one notch, weight shifts, and small input swings are shown. The report highlights what would materially raise or lower value and points to the evidence required.

Data with judgment: We prefer data, but early companies have gaps. Where inputs are thin, we use conservative ranges and state the rationale. We mark what would confirm the estimate. No false precision, no unexplained plugs.

Transparent and repeatable: Inputs are visible, formulas are standard, totals reconcile. The executive summary pulls directly from the method pages. Version, preparer, and sources create an audit trail. A reader can rebuild the result in a simple spreadsheet.

This report shows exactly how these principles are applied, step by step

The table links each principle to the proof we show and where to find it. Use it as a checklist while you review. If something is missing in a live report, we flag the gap and note the impact.

What this gives you. A traceable valuation with sources, consistent methods, and one reconciled result. You can verify inputs, rerun the math, and see where judgment was used. Fair, explainable, repeatable.

We value using a simple waterfall. We place the scheme against comparable sales, read today's market, set a fair range, then run methods to plot a point inside that range. That point drives the appraisal.

Evidence. Value on completion comes from what buyers pay now. Recent closed sales in RiNo and LoHi, price per square foot by unit type, and absorption at competing schemes. Marlowe's larger, better-finished homes set the reference against those comparables.

Market. We read the for-sale climate in Denver. Closed pricing, days on market, the new supply coming through, and buyer depth at the premium end. In-migration and a thin pipeline of for-sale product move the reference upward.

Range. This bracket is the value a willing buyer and seller would agree today. Each method has to land inside it. If one falls outside, we explain it and hold it to the range.

Methods

Comparable Sales reads price per square foot from recent sales.

Residual Land Valuation works back from sales value to the land price.

Profit on Cost Benchmark tests the margin against the required return.

VC Method works back from a sensible exit and required return.

Residual land valuation takes the value on completion, subtracts every development cost and the profit a developer requires, and leaves the land value the site supports.

Scenario Analysis weights three cases of the appraisal

Result. Weighted result equals each method value times its weight, which gives the concluded gross development value.

A value sits inside a range that a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Two readings set that range: the appraisal, which is internal evidence of the margin, and the comparable band, which is external

The table below maps each internal signal to what an early, neutral, or late stage reading looks like in practice. The strongest cluster of signals sets the stage.

The table below maps each market signal to what an unfavorable, neutral, or favorable reading looks like in practice. We anchor the band to the strongest cluster of signals.

After defining the range of value, we apply six valuation methods to triangulate where within that range Marlowe Yard sits. These methods are weighted by stage: earlier stages weight internal methods more heavily, later stages weight external and forecasted methods.

We have identified that Marlowe Yard stage of business fits into Boutique premium of For-sale condominium round.

Giving it a value of $70M - $74M GDV

Marlowe Yard is a 48-home for-sale condominium in RiNo, priced to complete at a gross development value of $72.2M. The blended rate of $1,176 per square foot sits inside the $900 to $1,300 range set by recent RiNo and LoHi schemes, at the premium end, supported by larger homes and a higher finish level. Independent methods triangulate the value on completion to between $70M and $74M. After a total development cost of $53.3M, the scheme returns an $18.82M profit, a 35.3% margin on cost and 26.1% on gross development value, against a market requirement of 15% to 20%. The residual land value the scheme supports is $11.0M, in line with the site basis. The margin holds above the required range even in the downside case.

For the total value cap we use the upper bound of the band determined from our methodology above and divide by 5 to get the maximum value of each evaluation criteria.

The base valuation uses the midpoint of the value band. The value of a point is the delta between the low and high of the band divided by the total number of points (48). Per-risk scores aggregate to a single adjustment applied to the base.

Below are the 3 identified companies for comparison. Each should fall within the stage of business and band identified above to be a fair comparison for this method

Larimer & 30th (RiNo)

Curved-facade condominium tower in RiNo, completed 2024. New homes achieved around $1,300 per square foot, at the top of the Denver market. It sets the premium ceiling for the submarket.

Capital Raised: $1,300/sqftDate Raised: 2024

The Rowan (RiNo)

Sustainability-focused condominium community in RiNo, delivered 2022. Homes traded around $950 per square foot, at the value end of new RiNo product. It marks the floor for recent for-sale pricing in the submarket.

Capital Raised: $950/sqftDate Raised: 2022

Nine Mile (RiNo)

Boutique condominium building in RiNo, completed 2023. New homes sold around $1,100 per square foot. It is the closest comparable to Marlowe on scale, location and finish.

Capital Raised: $1,100/sqftDate Raised: 2023

Weighted factor scores and comparable-scheme inputs produce the benchmark and the margin above the required return.

Three comparable stage exits in Comparable are adjusted for the probability of Marlowe Yard reaching that scale, weighted by representativeness, then converted to today’s gross using the required return multiple.

Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted at the cost of capital to derive enterprise value. Discounted years one through five plus the discounted terminal sum to today’s value.

Upside, base, and downside cases are given probabilities; their weighted average is the profit.

Projected monthly sales and costs are discounted to today to derive the scheme's present value and profit.

Projected monthly sales and costs are discounted to today to derive the scheme's present value and profit.

This document has been prepared for the purposes stated herein and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. This document provides a summary of the work undertaken by Top Tier Advisory and unless required by law, this document should not be provided to any third party without our prior written consent. In no event, regardless of whether consent has been provided, shall we assume any responsibility to any third party to which this document is disclosed or otherwise made available.

This document was prepared exclusively for internal use as at the date hereof and does not carry any right of publication or disclosure, in whole or in part, to any other party. This document is for discussion purposes only and is incomplete without reference to, and should be viewed solely in conjunction with, the oral briefing provided by the representatives of Top Tier Advisory.

The information provided in this document is based solely upon financial and non-financial information provided.

Whilst our work has involved a benchmark analysis, our engagement does not include either an audit or a review in accordance with International Standards on Auditing of the information used in the preparation of this valuation report. Accordingly, we assume no responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information used in the preparation of this report.

Budgets and forecasts relate to future events and are based on assumptions that may not remain valid for the whole or part of the relevant period. Consequently this information cannot be relied upon to the same

extent as that derived from audited accounts for completed accounting periods. We express no opinion as to how closely the actual results will correspond to those forecasts used in this presentation.

Market conditions and volatility of such markets make valuation exercises, of both company cash flows and financial instruments, extremely challenging and have created a significant potential range of assumptions

on risk-free rate, equity market risk premium and debt spreads. In addition, theoretical assumptions may not reflect reality. Subjectivity over key inputs to the cost of capital and capital and operating expenditure

assumptions, as well as underlying concerns about the impact of the economic upturns and/or downturn on the financial forecasts increases the complexity of the valuation analysis.

The benchmarking of companies, businesses and related cash flows is not a precise science and the conclusions arrived at in many cases will, of necessity, be subjective and dependent on the exercise of individual

Judgement as well as publicly available information to a certain extent. There is therefore no indisputable single value and we normally express the value as falling within a range at a point in time. Whilst we consider our benchmarks to be both reasonable and defensible based on the information available to us, others may place a different value on the benchmarks.