​

What Grant Saw | What Jai Would Do | How to Pitch It Better

By Jai Thompson

I manage a private equity platform deploying 13–18 million per quarter across multiple real estate asset classes. Our model is asset-based, escrow-directed, and execution-driven, allowing us to close in 23 days or less with certainty and clean title flow. We acquire and operate across luxury estates, single-family residential portfolios, multifamily communities, hospitality and hotels, mixed-use properties, RV parks and mobile home communities, golf resorts and destination assets, and specialized housing and income portfolios.

The San Diego lesson was simple: Grant was not buying hype. He was buying cash flow, truth, control, and exits. In your transcript, he kept coming back to “when does this thing start cash flowing?” and rejected deals when the math, the partner, or the exit path got weak.

Quick rule before every pitch

DSCR = NOI ÷ Debt Payment
If DSCR is below 1.00, the property does not cover debt.

Yield = NOI ÷ Total Cost
That tells you what the property earns before debt.

1) Claremont 64-unit — $17.5M

What Grant saw

He liked the scale and location, but the deal was bought at about a 3.5% cap with debt around 5.75%, so he saw negative leverage from day one. He also did not believe the tenant move-out plan was realistic in California.

3rd-grade math

Price: $17,500,000
Cap rate: 3.5%
NOI: $17,500,000 × 0.035 = $612,500

Debt cost at 5.75%:
$17,500,000 × 0.0575 = $1,006,250

Cash flow before principal:
$612,500 − $1,006,250 = negative $393,750

DSCR:
$612,500 ÷ $1,006,250 = 0.61

Yield:
$612,500 ÷ $17,500,000 = 3.5%

Why this is weak

You are walking in losing money. Grant said it plainly: the deal bleeds until rents rise.

What Jai would do

I would not pitch this as a “great deal right now.” I would pitch it as:

• a repositioning deal

• with a 24–36 month timeline

• a real tenant law memo

• a real cash-for-keys budget

• and a clear year-one burn number

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, this is not a day-one cash flow deal. It is a scale repositioning deal. I have the real NOI, real tenant-turn timing, real cash-for-keys budget, and real year-one downside. If the timeline works for you, I’ll send the clean memo.”

Email subject:
Claremont 64 Units | Honest Repositioning Math | Real Year-1 Burn

Email:
Grant, this one is not a fantasy cash-flow pitch.
Current yield is about 3.5% on a $17.5M basis and debt near 5.75% creates negative leverage on day one.
What makes it worth discussing is scale, location, and the spread after turnover — but only if we underwrite the California tenant timeline honestly.
I have:
in-place NOI
year-one bleed
cash-for-keys range
legal turnover assumptions
stabilized upside
If you want truth before excitement, I’ll send the package.

Short script:
“Grant, this is not the deal to buy for today’s cash flow. This is the deal to buy for controlled repositioning. Today’s NOI is about $612K. Debt at 5.75% is about $1M. So day one it loses about $394K. DSCR is about 0.61. If you want immediate cash flow, this is not it. If you want scale with a legal turnover path, here is the real timeline.”

2) La Jolla Shores single-family — $4.2M in the show

What Grant saw

He liked La Jolla, but hated being put in backup position. He also said the deal had too few exits and not enough margin for the risk.

3rd-grade math

If net profit is only about $1,000,000 on $4,200,000, then:
$1,000,000 ÷ $4,200,000 = 23.8% gross margin before surprises

That sounds fine until:

• rehab runs over

• resale slows

• carrying costs grow

• and you only have one main exit

Why this is weak

One deal. One buyer pool. One big bet.

What Jai would do

I would not bring this with “we already have another offer.”
I would bring it one of two ways:

• off-market with control

• or distress with price advantage

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, this is not a backup-bid property. Either I control it off-market, or I do not bring it to you. One page: buy, rehab, resale, rental fallback, and downside.”

Email subject:
La Jolla Shores | No Auction | 3 Exits or No Deal

Short script:
“Grant, I know location is elite. But I am not presenting this as a vanity flip. I’m presenting three exits: resale, luxury rental, or hold. If I cannot show all three clearly, we pass.”

3) Pacific Beach 8-unit — $3.85M

What Grant saw

Best location in the room, visible rent growth, immediate lease proof, and low enough exposure to move. That is why he picked it, even though he did not fully trust the operator.

3rd-grade math

8 units
Old rent example: $1,875
New rent example: $3,750
Rent jump per unit: $1,875

If 8 units all doubled like that:
$1,875 × 8 = $15,000 more per month
$15,000 × 12 = $180,000 more per year

That is why Grant got interested. The upside was not theory. The leases showed it.

Debt warning

The hard-money loan was around 9%, which Grant hated. He also hated that the operator was unclear about where the money came from.

What Jai would do

I would keep the real estate, clean up the presentation:

• no back-alley first impression

• full rent roll

• lease copies

• debt payoff letter

• bridge-to-perm refinance plan

• exact partner roles

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, this is Pacific Beach, 8 units, six blocks to the beach, leases already proving the rent jump. Ugly operator story removed. Clean memo only: current income, signed leases, hard-money payoff, perm-debt exit.”

Email subject:
Pacific Beach 8 Units | Leases Prove Rent Growth | Refi Exit Ready

Short script:
“Grant, I know you hated the operator. So forget him for a second and look at the real estate. Best location in the room. Signed leases. Immediate rent lift. Small exposure. The fix here is not the property. The fix is cleaning up the debt and the cap stack.”

4) Pacific Beach teardown with coastal risk

What Grant saw

Too much city risk, too much coastal-commission risk, too much time risk, and too much “I’ll figure it out later.” He asked for worst-case timing and net worth proof because he saw danger everywhere.

3rd-grade math

If approvals take 8 months just to start, and holding cost is even $20,000 per month, then:
8 × $20,000 = $160,000 burned before real progress.

If it goes 12 months:
12 × $20,000 = $240,000

That is before construction surprises.

What Jai would do

Only bring this if:

• basis is below land value

• seller is in distress

• city risk memo is in hand

• there is a bailout exit without approvals

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, this is not a vision pitch. This is a distress basis pitch. Seller is getting eaten alive, I have the carry cost, approval timeline, and the exit if coastal stalls.”

Short script:
“Grant, I agree this is a risk deal. So I’m not selling dream upside. I’m selling a discounted basis, a troubled seller, and a worst-case map. If the worst case is not survivable, we pass.”

5) Barrio Logan 8-unit development — $1.3M

What Grant saw

The presenter wanted Grant to buy the unfinished risk while keeping the cash-flowing side. Grant saw the misalignment immediately.

3rd-grade math

Projected long-term rent:
$2,200 × 8 = $17,600 per month
$17,600 × 12 = $211,200 gross per year

That sounds okay, but Grant’s problem was not the future rent. His problem was:
you keep the safe side, I take the pain side.

What Jai would do

Bundle the whole thing.
Investor gets:

• first safety

• first control

• first money protection

Sponsor gets paid after execution.

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, I fixed the alignment problem. You are not buying the unfinished side while I keep the cash flow. It is one package, one cap stack, one control path.”

Short script:
“Grant, if I keep the safe side and sell you the pain, I deserve a no. Here is the corrected structure: whole site, same economics, investor protected first.”

6) Grant Hill 42-unit adaptive reuse

What Grant saw

Too much complexity, unclear tenant profile, too much competition risk from downtown, and not enough sponsor experience for that level of project. Opportunity-zone tax talk did not save it.

3rd-grade math

42 units at $2,000 per month =
42 × $2,000 = $84,000 per month
$84,000 × 12 = $1,008,000 gross

That is gross, not NOI. After expenses, delays, and build risk, the story gets much thinner.

What Jai would do

I would only bring this with:

• rent comp proof

• construction contingency

• experienced operator attached

• tenant demand memo

• phased exit plan

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, this is not an OZ tax pitch. It is a tenant-demand, construction-control, contingency-backed package. If the cash flow does not survive the build, we kill it.”

7) National City 76-unit — $17M

What Grant saw

He loved the scale, the garden-style layout, and the upside. But he did not believe the turnover budget, the capex budget, or the 50/50 split when he was taking most of the risk. The missing partner also hurt trust.

3rd-grade math

Price: $17,000,000
Cap rate around 3% in the dialogue
NOI: $17,000,000 × 0.03 = $510,000

If debt is about 5.5%:
$17,000,000 × 0.055 = $935,000

Cash flow before principal:
$510,000 − $935,000 = negative $425,000

DSCR:
$510,000 ÷ $935,000 = 0.55

Cash-for-keys budget said: $200,000 for 76 units
That is only about:
$200,000 ÷ 76 = $2,632 per unit

Grant said that was not real.

What Jai would do

I would fix three things:

• bring every partner into the room

• underwrite a real move-out budget

• reset the equity split to reflect who brings capital and liability

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, this is the biggest upside deal, but I fixed the three reasons it died: all decision-makers are present, cash-for-keys is underwritten honestly, and the split reflects who carries debt and execution risk.”

Short script:
“Grant, today’s NOI is too low for the debt. I agree. This is a scale repositioning deal, not a day-one cash flow deal. The reason to do it is the footprint and the upside. The reason not to do it is if the tenant-turn and partner-control are sloppy. I fixed those.”

8) Allied Gardens single-family flip — $680K

What Grant saw

Too much headache for too little upside. He said risking roughly $700K to make about $50K was not worth it. He also said a single home has 100% vacancy if the tenant leaves.

3rd-grade math

Profit target: $50,000
Risk basis: $700,000

Return:
$50,000 ÷ $700,000 = 7.1%

That is too skinny for that much mess.

What Jai would do

This only works if:

• basis is way lower

• ADU path is real

• rental plan is strong

• refinance plan exists

• exit is fast

How to pitch it better to Grant

Text:
“Grant, I know one door is not your model. I only bring this if it is stupid cheap and there are at least two exits: rental and flip.”

9) 1900 Spindrift Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037 — current ask $92.5M

The live listing shows $92,500,000, down from $108,000,000 on October 22, 2024. The property is listed as 10 beds, 17 baths, 12,981 square feet, built in 2015, on about 0.82 acres, with private beach access and oceanfront positioning in La Jolla Shores. (Homes)

What Grant would likely see

He would see a trophy asset, but the same question comes back:
where is the cash flow?

At $92.5M, this is a prestige buy unless you can prove:

• elite rental income

• membership income

• event income

• or some private-club style monetization

Without that, it is just beauty.

3rd-grade math

Ask price: $92,500,000

To hit even a 5% yield, the property would need:
$92,500,000 × 0.05 = $4,625,000 NOI per year

To hit a 6% yield, it would need:
$92,500,000 × 0.06 = $5,550,000 NOI per year

If debt cost were 6% interest only, debt would be:
$92,500,000 × 0.06 = $5,550,000 per year

That means:

• at 5% NOI, DSCR is below 1.00

• at 6% NOI, DSCR is about 1.00

• to feel strong, you would want NOI above that

Why this matters

A luxury trophy only becomes an investment when the NOI is real.

What Jai would do

I would not pitch Spindrift as a house.
I would pitch it as a high-end income engine:

• chairman-style luxury stays

• private-club access

• elite retreat buyouts

• filmed content and brand partnerships

• white-glove family office hospitality

But I would also be honest:
I do not have your prior Spindrift underwriting in this thread, so these yield and DSCR marks are just screening math off the live ask, not your full model. (Homes)

How to pitch Spindrift to Grant

Text:
“Grant, 1900 Spindrift is not a house pitch. It is a trophy income platform. Current ask is $92.5M after a $16M cut. I only want you to look at it if I can show real NOI, not ocean-view romance.” (Homes)

Email subject:
1900 Spindrift | La Jolla Shores | Trophy Asset Only If NOI Is Real

Email:
Grant,
1900 Spindrift is currently being marketed at $92.5M after a $16M price reduction. It is a rare La Jolla Shores beachfront trophy with 10 bedrooms, 17 baths, nearly 13,000 square feet, and private beach access. (Homes)
I am not presenting it as a vanity buy.
I am presenting it as a possible high-end income platform if the NOI can justify the basis.
At this price, the property needs roughly $4.625M of annual NOI just to hit a 5% yield, and more than that if we want comfortable debt coverage. (Homes)
If you want, I’ll send a structure-first memo: revenue lanes, operating load, downside case, and why it either works or gets passed.

Short script:
“Grant, this is not oceanfront fantasy. This is trophy discipline. At $92.5M, it needs about $4.6M NOI for a 5% yield and about $5.55M NOI just to cover 6% interest-only debt. If I can’t prove the income, we don’t touch it.” (Homes)

Why your version is better

Your version is better because you would lead with:

• day-one NOI

• DSCR

• yield

• control

• seller pain

• title-directed structure

• real downside

Grant kept rejecting people because they were selling hope. The transcript shows he wanted proof, partner clarity, and cash flow. He repeatedly rejected negative leverage, weak exits, unclear partners, and “just trust me” math.

The exact line you should say before any deal

“Grant, I’m not here to sell you excitement. I’m here to show you current NOI, debt coverage, yield, partner control, and the downside if the plan slips. If it cash flows and the story is clean, we move. If not, we kill it fast.”

Best takeaway from San Diego

The winner was not the prettiest deal.
The winner was the one closest to:

• real location

• real leases

• real cash flow

• real exit

• and the least complexity

If you want next, I’ll turn this into a full long-form article in your exact voice with a stronger hook, cleaner section titles, and a tighter closing.